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 07/15/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the USPTO determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines. Applicant is particularly advised that, under the 2019 PEG, when assessing subject matter eligibility for a patent, examples of “determining or calculating parameters" that might be considered a judicial exception include claims that simply involve basic data manipulation and/or mathematical calculations that can be performed in mind or the aid of a general-purpose computer, without any inventive application of that calculation to a specific technological problem.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of masking periodic noise with music signals, but without reciting any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analysis as set forth in sections 3-4 below in this Office action).
While arguing about the amended limitation “mask the periodic noise by controlling the speaker to output music made by synthesizing …”, Applicant fails to explain how the speaker is particularly structured and configured to conduct the masking task through synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo and the first beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the playing period. In light of the Specification (e.g., US 20230410776 A1, Fig. 2; paragraphs [0080]-[0081], [0116], [0120], [0144], [0147]), the masking task is performed solely by the controller 30, the speaker 40 is component separate from the controller 30 and used merely as a passive output device to reproduce the signals, i.e., the music produced based on the result of processing the periodic noise signal, generated from the controller 30. That is, if a periodic noise signal is directly inputted into the speaker, the speaker will output the same periodic noise signal with no noise cancellation. This is significantly different from those noise-cancelling speakers on the market which use active noise cancellation to generate anti-noise waves that neutralize unwanted noise sounds captured, e.g., by microphones integrated with the speaker that monitor the surrounding environment. Put it differently, when using a conventional LCD display to display a visual representation of the output from an AI engine that processes data based on machine-learning algorithms, one cannot say the LCD itself performs AI machine-learning processes and claim that such an LCD reflects an improvement in the technology area of electronically modulated optical devices.
Accordingly, under the BRI to the claim, Examiner takes the position that the amended limitation “mask the periodic noise by controlling the speaker to output music made by synthesizing …” (i.e., control the speaker to output music made by synthesizing … wherein said synthesizing masks the periodic noise) encompassed an insignificant post-solution activity that does not amount to “significantly more” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “This represents an improvement …”, Examiner asserts that the pending claims of the present application do not provide any qualified improvement under MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a), see also discussion of the prior art as set forth in sections 5-6 below. Even if, which is not, there is any improvement, it comes from the identified abstract idea (mental + math) but not the additional elements/limitation. According to MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim eligibility are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the rejection under 35 USC 101 as set forth below in the current Office Action, thus are deemed unpersuasive as well.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
161
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With the BRI to the amended limitation as discussed above, Examiner maintains that the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE teaches or renders obvious the invention recited in the pending claims 1-20 of the present application, including the limitation in question. Detailed response is given in sections 5-6 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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of masking periodic noise.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A system for masking periodic noise, the system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to detect a periodic noise signal;
at least one memory having stored at least one song and at least one beat sound;
a speaker; and
at least one processor configured to:
(S1) select a first song and a first beat sound from the at least one song and the at least one beat sound based on at least one of a period and an amplitude of the periodic noise signal,
(S2) adjust a tempo of the first song based on the period of the periodic noise signal to an adjusted tempo,
(S3) determine a playing period of the first beat sound based on the period of the periodic noise signal, and
(S4) mask the periodic noise by controlling the speaker to output music made by synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo and the first beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the playing period.
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 and/or the combination of the limitations S1, S2 and S3 recited in the bolded portion encompasses data analysis and manipulation processes that can be performed by the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with the aid of paper/pen based on mathematical concepts (e.g., FFT, patten recognition and matching, calculation of BPM change ration, etc.)
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations S1, S2 and S3 from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1, 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.
Representative claim 1 recites “at least one sensor configured to detect a periodic noise signal; at least one memory having stored at least one song and at least one beat sound; a speaker” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, the combination of these additional elements reads on a general-purpose computer performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic limitation of the processor is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer. It is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under its BRI, the limitation S4 encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. In light of the Specification (e.g., US 20230410776 A1, Fig. 2; paragraphs [0080]-[0081], [0116], [0120], [0144], [0147]), the masking task is performed solely by the controller 30, the speaker 40 is component separate from the controller 30 and used merely as a passive output device to reproduce the signals, i.e., the music produced based on the result of processing the periodic noise signal, generated from the controller 30. Such a post solution activity 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 MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 algorithm of masking a given periodic noise, which 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, 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 well-known/conventional techniques. The claim does not recite any limitation that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation “control the speaker to output music made by synthesizing the first song … and the first beat sound … in accordance with the playing period”. Under the BRI, techniques of synthesizing multiple music pieces in accordance with a playing period and controlling a speaker to output the synthesizes music pieces are all well-known/conventional in the art. These additional limitations do not effect a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or reflect a qualified improvement or an inventive concept that is patentable.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit attributes of the independent claim 15, but do 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.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods (US 20230281244 A1) in view of KUSAKABE (US 20210241729 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Woods discloses a system and method for masking periodic noise (Abstract; para. 0044-0045), comprising: at least one sensor configured to detect a periodic noise signal (para. 0044-0045: “where the audio content includes background noise, determining modulation characteristics”; para. 0051: “Modulation waveform may express the shape of the modulation cycle, such as a sine wave”); at least one memory having stored at least one song (para. 0036, 0064); a speaker (para. 0072); and at least one processor (para. 0096) configured to: select a first song from the at least one song based on at least one of a period (e.g., the period of the sine waveform, see para. 005-0052) and an amplitude of the periodic noise signal (para. 0070; see also para. 0083), adjust a tempo of the first song based on the period of the periodic noise signal to an adjusted tempo (para. 0080: “audio parameters may include tempo …”; para. 0084-0086, 0123: “Parameters of the audio track may be dynamically modified such that the user may move from the current state to the target state. … the example parameter candidates include (i) modulation characteristics, such as the rate of amplitude modulation, the intensity of the modulation, and so on, and (ii) audio parameters of the audio track, such as tempo and tonality …”), and mask the periodic noise by controlling the speaker to output music made by synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo (para. 0072, 0084, 0122; note in light of Applicant’s Specification, the limitation “mask the periodic noise by controlling the speaker to output music made by synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo” is interpreted as: control the speaker to output music made by synthesizing … wherein said synthesizing masks the periodic).
Woods does not mention explicitly: at least one memory having stored at least one beat sound; select a first beat sound from the at least one beat sound based on at least one of a period and an amplitude of the periodic noise signal; determine a playing period of the first beat sound based on the period of the periodic noise signal; and control the speaker to output music made by synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo and the first beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the playing period.
KUSAKABE discloses a beat sound generation device and method (para. 0007, 0029, 0033), comprising: at least one memory having stored at least one beat sound (para. 0060: “the digital data of the beat (for example, a hand clapping sound) which has been stored in the ROM 11 or the HDD 13 in advance”); detect (e.g., via MIC 21 in Fig. 1) an input signal (para. 0038) and determine at least one of a period and an amplitude of the input signal (para. 0047, 0051, 0054); select a first beat sound from the at least one beat sound based on at least one of a period and an amplitude of the input signal (para. 0047, 0051, 0054, 0060); determine a playing period of the first beat sound based on the period of the periodic noise signal (para. 0047, 0051, 0054, 0061); and control a speaker to output the first beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the playing period in a manner of superimposed on a music being reproduced or performed (para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KUSAKABE’s teaching of beat sound generation technique into Woods and control the speak to output music by mixing/synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo and the generated beat sound to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that the modification is a mere intended use of the KUSAKABE invention, the skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for performing or singing music or a reproduction of music since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness (KUSAKABE, para. 0007-0008).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Woods teaches or renders obvious: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to adjust the tempo of the first song to the adjusted tempo so that a beat period of the first song is N or 1/N times the period of the periodic noise signal, and N is a natural number (para. 0080, 0084-0086, 0123).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Woods does not but KUSAKABE teaches: determine the playing period of the first beat sound so that the playing period of the first beat sound is N or 1/N times the period of the input signal, and N is a natural number (para. 0047, 0051, 0054, 0060-0061). As such, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Woods does not but KUSAKABE teaches: adjust a playing point in time of the output music so that a beat of the input signal is coincident with a beat of the output music (para. 0047, 0051, 0054, 0060-0061). As such, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Woods teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to predict a generation point in time of the periodic noise signal based on the period of the periodic noise signal and control the speaker to play the music at the predicted generation point in time (para. 0072, 0084, 0108, 0122, 0136).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Woods teaches: wherein based on the period of the periodic noise signal being changed by a preset ratio or more (para. 0136), the at least one processor is further configured to readjust the tempo of the first song, produce resynthesized music made by synthesizing the first song with the readjusted tempo in accordance with the redetermined playing period, stop an output of the music, and control the speaker to output the resynthesized music (para. 0049, 0107-0108, 0110-0111, 0123, 0139). Woods does not but KUSAKABE teaches: based on the period of the input signal being changed by a preset ratio or more, redetermine the playing period of the first beat sound (para. 0047, 0051, 0054, 0060-0061). As such, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE discussed for claims 1 and 11 renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE is silent on: wherein the at least one song comprises at least two songs and wherein based on a the period of the periodic noise signal being changed by a preset ratio or more, the at least one processor is further configured to select a second song different from the first song from the at least one song, adjust a second tempo of the second song based on the period of the periodic noise signal to a second adjusted tempo, redetermine the playing period of the first beat sound based on the period of the periodic noise signal, and control the speaker to output resynthesized music made by synthesizing the second song with the second adjusted tempo and the first beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the redetermined playing period.
However, the features in question are considered a mere intended practice of the Woods/KUSAKABE combination for a second prestored song. Since Woods teaches the general condition of the song (para. 0036, 0064), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to a pre-store second song, and apply the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to said second song to arrive the claimed invention, 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. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE is silent on: wherein at least one beat sound comprises at least two beat sounds and wherein based on the amplitude of the periodic noise signal being changed by a preset ratio or more, the at least one processor is further configured to select a second beat sound different from the first beat sound from the at least one beat sound and control the speaker to output resynthesized music made by synthesizing the first song with the adjusted tempo and the second beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the determined playing period.
However, the features in question are considered a mere intended practice of the Woods/KUSAKABE combination for a second prestored beat sound. Since KUSAKABE teaches the general condition of the beat sounds (para. 0029), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to a pre-store second beat sound and apply the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to said second beat sound to arrive the claimed invention, 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. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE is silent on: wherein the at least one song comprises at least two songs and the at least one beat sound comprises at least two beat sounds and wherein based on the period of the periodic noise signal being changed by a first preset ratio or more, the at least one processor is further configured to select a second song different from the first song from the at least one song, select a second beat sound different from the first beat sound from the at least one beat sound based on the amplitude of the periodic noise signal being changed by a second preset ratio or more, adjust a tempo of the second song based on the period of the periodic noise signal, determine a playing period of the second beat sound based on the period of the periodic noise signal, and control the speaker to output resynthesized music made by synthesizing the second song with the adjusted tempo and the second beat sound that is repeated in accordance with the determined playing period.
However, the features in question are considered a mere intended practice of the Woods/KUSAKABE combination for a second prestored song and a second prestored beat sound. Since Woods teaches the general condition of the song (para. 0036, 0064) and KUSAKABE teaches the general condition of the beat sounds (para. 0029), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to a pre-store second song and a pre-store second beat sound, and apply the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to said second song and said second beat sound to arrive the claimed invention, 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. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Woods and KUSAKABE is silent on: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the speaker to play the resynthesized music having passed through a fade-in filter.
Examiner takes official notice that a speaker configured to play a synthesized music having passed through a fade-in filter (a technique used to gradually increase the volume of a sound from silence to full volume) is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Woods/KUSAKABE to include such a fade-in filter to arrive the claimed invention, 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. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Conclusion
7. 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
8. 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