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 § 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.
Claims 2-21 are 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 2, line 5, please clarify which “each note information” is being referenced (i.e. note information about each of plurality of target notes, or note information about each of plurality of source notes).
Claim 2, line 6, please which “the note” is being referenced (target or source). Further, the recitation of “the note” (singular) is indefinite, given there is no previous mention of a singular note, only a plurality of target notes and a plurality of source notes.
Claim 2, lines 7 and 8, please clarify whether “a respective target segment” and “a respective source segment” are related to the previously recited target segment and source segment. If they are related, please clarify how then a plurality of segment pairs can be formed from a singular target segment and singular source segment, given only “a target segment” and “a source segment” have been previously recited.
Claim 2, line 10, please clarify if “a new segment” relates to the target or source segment.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the respective target note" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a respective target note, only a plurality of target notes.
Independent claims 15 and 21 are rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 2.
As for claim 3, please clarify whether “a plurality of target segments” and “a plurality of source segments” are related to or different from the “a target segment”, “a source segment”, “a respective target segment” or “a respective source segment” recited in preceding claim 2.
As for claim 7, the recitation of “the target segments” and “the source segments” lack antecedent basis given there is only mention of a singular target segment and singular source segment in preceding claim 2.
Further in claim 7, please clarify what the Applicant intends by the recitation “to form target/source segments as regular segments”. Please identify what is deemed as a regular segment and how it relates to the target or source segments.
In claim 10, please clarify which “the note information” is being referenced (target or source), and whether “a pitch of the respective target note” is related to or different from the previously recited “a pitch of the note” in claim 2.
In claims 11-14, please clarify which note is being referenced by “the respective note” (target or source). Further, “the respective note” lacks antecedent basis, given there is no previous mention of a respective note.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claims 3 and 7.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations discussed above.
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 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-14 recite preparing, ranking, forming, removing, replacing and concatenating data and elements. These limitations are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and includes no the recitation of computer/processing components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
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. In particular, even if the claim were to recite an additional element such as – using a processor to perform the above steps, the processor would be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of an element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite preparing, ranking, forming, removing, replacing and concatenating data and elements.
These limitations, as drafted, are instructions and a system that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, “forming” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or constructing elements.
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. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computer or processing circuitry. The computer and circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer or circuitry amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art
At this time, the closest prior art of record are the US patent application publication to Nguyen, and the US patents to Dabby (9,286,876), Oppenheim (5,663,517) and Pachet et al. (11,651,758).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 09/25/2025