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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. 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 automatic generation of audio tracks.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to:
S1: acquire a template, wherein the template comprises one or more template sections that are each associated with one or more sound generators;
S2: apply a model to the template to generate an audio track from the template by, for each of at least a subset of the one or more template sections, generate an audio section, note by note, using at least a subset of the one or more sound generators associated with that template section; and
S3: output the audio track in an output format.
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.
Method/process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations S2 recited in the bolded portion encompasses data analysis processes, i.e. data manipulation, arrangement and evaluation, that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper. The claim does not provide any details about how the model itself operates to generate said audio track from the template. That is, the relevant claim limitation only recites the outcome of the models which is used like a “Black Box” hardware/software/mathematical tool to perform an existing mental process. In light of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), merely using a model (e.g., a machine learning model) to perform calculations that are otherwise abstract does not take the claimed limitation(s) out of the categories of abstract idea.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitation S2 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 mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within the “Mental Process” grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Representative claim 1 recites “using at least one hardware processor” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, a hardware processor reads on a general-purpose computer performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic 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 S1 encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The limitation “wherein the template comprises one or more template sections that are each associated with one or more sound generators” amounts to merely data characterization and 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. Thus, it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under its BRI, the limitation S3 encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity. It has been held that generally attaching an extra-solution activity to the claimed abstract idea is not qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. At most, it generally links the output of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
None of these additional elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 generating audio tracks based on template. 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.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-18 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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-18 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHEEHAN et al. (US 20210303618 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, SHEEHAN discloses a method/system, and computer program product for implementing the method/system (Abstract; para. 0023), comprising using at least one hardware processor (e.g., 154 Fig. 1) to: acquire a template (para. 0015, 0031-0032; see also Fig. 3), wherein the template comprises one or more template sections (time blocks) that are each associated with one or more sound generators (para. 0005, 0017; see also Abstract); apply a model (see Fig. 4 and related text) to the template to generate an audio track (e.g., an audio mix created based on the acquired template by which musical tracks are selected and incorporated into the audio mix) from the template (para. 0005, 0015, 0017, 0047; see also Abstract) by, for each of at least a subset of the one or more template sections, generate an audio section, note by note (para. 0016: “It is desirable to include songs and/or song portions in the rendered audio mix with a consistent energy, tempo and/or pitch to ensure that the audio of each of the workout segments is consistent”; by inherency, the audio mix comprises an audio section that is “note by note”), using at least a subset of the one or more sound generators associated with that template section (para. 0018: “the application server may produce an audio mix with a plurality of time blocks with different energy levels, tempos, and/or pitch that facilitates a workout of multiple segments of different activity (e.g., warming-up, cardio, endurance, sprinting, weight-training, and cooling down)”; para. 0038, 0068, 0076); and output the audio track in an output format (para. 0078-0079).
Regarding claim 2, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein each of the one or more template sections is associated with a probability vector (e.g., energy score, tempo, mood, genre, audio power, and/or related metadata of the audio/song file) that defines a probability value for each of the one or more sound generators associated with that template section (para. 0004, 0016, 0039, 0058, 0064, 0073: “The application server 150 may parse each song for each period and template looking for song portions and/or series of bars, which best fit the defined duration for that interval”).
Regarding claim 3, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein each probability value for one of the one or more sound generators in each probability vector represents a likelihood that the sound generator will be used to generate the audio section for the template section associated with that probability vector (para. 0004, 0016, 0039, 0058, 0064, 0073).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the template comprises one or more template parameters (para. 0032), and wherein the model generates the audio track according to the one or more template parameters (para. 0005, 0015, 0017-0018, 0047, 0068, 0076); wherein the one or more template parameters comprise one or both of a speed or a musical key (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 6, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the one or more template sections are a plurality of template sections (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, SHEEHAN discloses: using the at least one hardware processor to determine an arrangement of the plurality of template sections (para. 0031).
Regarding claim 8, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the plurality of template sections are associated with probability values, and wherein the at least one hardware processor determines the arrangement of the plurality of template sections based on the probability values (para. 0004, 0016, 0039, 0058, 0064, 0073).
Regarding claim 9, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the one or more sound generators, associated with each of the one or more template sections, are a plurality of sound generators (e.g., para. 0065: “query the database 156 to populate a candidate list of song portions”, para. 0068: “… chosen randomly from the candidate list of songs that meet the at least one criteria of the time block from the template”, para. 0070: “allow the client/user by manipulation of the fields of the GUI 300 to replace all of the songs in a time block …”, para. 0071: “the application server 150 may remove the time block or song from the playlist and update the catalog accordingly”).
Regarding claim 13, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the template represents a sub-genre (e.g., a genre of the song) of a musical genre (para. 0016, 0027, 0036).
Regarding claim 14, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein acquiring the template comprises: receiving a selection of the template from a plurality of templates stored in a database, and retrieving the template from the database (para. 0015: “The templates may be stored on a database of an application server and be used by the application server to create playlists and audio mixes, which substantially conform to the specifications in the template”).
Regarding claim 15, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the template comprises one or more template parameters (para. 0005, 0015, 0017-0018, 0047, 0068, 0076), wherein the model generates the audio track according to the one or more template parameters (para. 0004, 0016, 0039, 0058, 0064, 0073), and wherein acquiring the template further comprises: generating a graphical user interface that comprises one or more inputs for specifying a value of each of at least a subset of the one or more template parameters, and receiving the value of at least one template parameter via the one or more inputs (see Figs. 2 and 3 and related text).
Regarding claim 16, SHEEHAN discloses: using the at least one hardware processor to, for each of the plurality of templates: generate a screen with one or more inputs for defining the template, receive a definition of the template via the one or more inputs (see Figs. 2 and 3 and related text); and store the defined template in the database (para. 0015).
Regarding claim 17, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein the screen comprises a matrix with two dimensions, wherein a first one of the two dimensions represents each sound generator that is associated with the one or more template sections, and wherein a second one of the two dimensions represents each of the one or more template sections (see Figs. 2 and 3 and related text).
Regarding claim 18, SHEEHAN discloses: wherein applying the model is implemented by a first microservice (para. 0065, 0068, 0070), and wherein outputting the audio track comprises rendering the audio track by a second microservice that is independent from the first microservice (para. 0078-0079).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEEHAN et al. in view of Sasaki et al. (US 7741554 B2).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, SHEEHAN does not mention explicitly: wherein each of the one or more sound generators, associated with each of the one or more template sections, is defined by one or more sources, one or more rhythms, and an algorithm that generates a one-shot, representing a note, based on the one or more sources and the one or more rhythms; wherein each algorithm is associated with one or more algorithm parameters, and wherein each algorithm generates the one-shot according to the one or more algorithm parameters.
Sasaki discloses a method/system for automatically creating data files of music pieces which satisfy given conditions such as a tempo of the music (Abstract), comprising: acquire a template (Step S14 in Fig. 5a), wherein the template comprises one or more template sections that are each associated with one or more sound generators (see discussion of Figs. 2, 3a and 3b); wherein each of the one or more sound generators, associated with each of the one or more template sections, is defined by one or more sources, one or more rhythms, and an algorithm that generates a one-shot, representing a note, based on the one or more sources and the one or more rhythms, wherein each algorithm is associated with one or more algorithm parameters, and wherein each algorithm generates the one-shot according to the one or more algorithm parameters (col. 13, lines 12-37).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sasaki’s teaching of sound generators and the associated algorithm into SHEEHAN to arrive the claimed invention such that the performance pattern (note arrangement pattern) of the audio mixes generated in accordance to the selected template retains the rhythm pattern phrases on the target rhythm tracks (Sasaki, col. 8, lines 15-19 and col. 9, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 12, SHEEHAN does not but Sasaki teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more sound generators, associated with at least one of the one or more template sections, is associated with one or more effects, and wherein the algorithm of the at least one sound generator generates the one-shot to have at least one of the one or more effects (col. 10, lines 22-30). As such, the combination of SHEEHAN and Sasaki renders the claimed invention obvious.
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