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 Election/Restrictions
2. Per Applicants' response dated 08/28/2026, an election was made without traverse to prosecute Group I, claims 1-6 and 11-14. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-6 and 11-14 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 1-6 and 11-14 are directed to an abstract idea of analyzing and visualizing creation principles of music.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A music data analysis apparatus comprising:
a memory, and a processor executing at least one instruction stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
(a) transform music data to a network including nodes and edges;
(b) obtain cycle information by applying topological data analysis to the transformed network; and
(c) generate an overlap matrix representing musical features of the music data by calculating a distribution of cycles included in the cycle information.
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 (a), (b) and (c) 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, 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.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the human mind 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 “a memory, and a processor executing at least one instruction stored in the memory” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, the combination of the processor and the memory 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 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); see also ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014).
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. 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.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of analyzing and visualizing creation principles of music. The additional limitations in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or well-known techniques. The claim does not recite any additional element 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 2-6 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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 16 set forth above.
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, 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 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (Topological Data Analysis of Korean Music in Jeongganbo: A Cycle Structure, arXiv.2103.06620v1, March 2021).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tran discloses a music data analysis method, and an apparatus for practicing the method, the method comprising: transforming music data to a network including nodes and edges (page 2: “In order to construct the music network of these music pieces, we first define and determine the node elements, that constitute the music, characterized uniquely with its pitch and length. Then we transform the music into a graph and introduce a proper metric to define the distance between the notes using their adjacent occurrence rate. …”); obtaining cycle information by applying topological data analysis to the transformed network (see Section 2: Topological data analysis); and generating an overlap matrix (e.g., the distance matrix D) representing musical features of the music data by calculating a distribution of cycles included in the cycle information (page 2, first paragraph: “provides a special musical pattern according to the Jeongganbo's matrix form.”; see also Section 4. Construction of music network).
Tran is silent on: said method is performed by a processor executing at least one instruction stored in a memory.
Examiner takes official notice that use of a general-purpose computer comprising a processor executing at least one instruction stored in a memory for music data analysis and visualization is well-known in the art (see the citation of prior art in section 7 below in this Office action). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply such a well-known general-purpose computer to implement the method of Tran via basic function of the computer. It has been held that the mere application of a general-purpose computer to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tran discloses: visualizing the musical features of the music data based on the overlap matrix (Abstract: “the pitch of each note is encrypted and the length is visualized directly in a matrix form of Jeongganbo”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Tran discloses: wherein in the obtaining of the cycle information, the method further comprises: apply a persistent homology theory linked to topological data analysis to the network to generate persistence barcode information (page 2, last paragraph; page 3, 1st paragraph); and obtain the cycle information corresponding to patterns appearing within the music data by applying topological data analysis to the persistent barcode information (page 2, last paragraph; page 3, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Tran discloses: calculate the distribution of the cycles appearing in s consecutive sequences to generate the overlap matrix (page 2: “The main discovery of this work is that the cycles of Suyeonjang and Songuyeo, defined using homology, frequently overlap each other when appearing over the music while the cycles found in Taryong”; see discussion of Fig. 20 and the “Overlap” percentage on page 25).
Regarding claim 5, Tran discloses: generate the nodes corresponding to notes appearing in the music data, and configuring a pitch and a length of each corresponding note in each node as information of the each node (page 2: “In order to construct the music network of these music pieces, we first define and determine the node elements, that constitute the music, characterized uniquely with its pitch and length. Then we transform the music into a graph and introduce a proper metric to define the distance between the notes using their adjacent occurrence rate. …”); and set an edge between the nodes, and setting a frequency of the nodes appearing at a same time or adjacent time as information of the edge (see the TDA discussed in Section 2).
Regarding claim 6, Tran discloses: extract a pattern repeatedly appearing within the music data as the cycle (page 3, 1st paragraph; see also page 26, Section 7).
Tran does not mention explicitly that the limitations recited in claims 2-6 and 13-14 are performed by the processor. However, as discussed for claims 1 and 11, the intended application of a general-purpose computer to practice the Tran method renders the features in question to be obvious.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11049481 B1 -- Music Generation System
Anselmo, Algorithmic Composition: The Music of Mathematics, H-SC Journal of Sciences (2019) Vol. VIII
Heart, The Mathematics of Musical Composition, The Mathematics of Musical Composition - Maths Careers (https://www.mathscareers.org.uk/the-mathematics-of-musical-composition/)
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