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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 01/28/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of Applicant’s response filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8, that the claims, similar to those in McRo, set forth rules that improve the existing technological processes by allowing the automation of tasks, and therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the claims in McRo, the claims at hand merely use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity. Generating a data structure, adding instances to the data structure, receiving audio recordings, and reporting a music setlist to an organization are steps conventionally performed in licensing songs. Furthermore, the claims at hand do not improve a technological process similar to those in McRo, since the claims perform a process previously outside of the realm of computers in the same manner it was performed outside the realm of computers. The claims do not bring forth any new rules or new way of performing a process which brings about a technological improvement similar to the claims in McRo. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8, that the claims improve accuracy of music usage reporting, since the process was previously performed manually and therefore prone to errors, and therefore bring forth a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process applications is not sufficient to show an improvement to computer-functionality. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Applicant argues, on page 9, that the submitted affidavit shows that the claimed invention brings forth an improvement that overcomes technical challenges in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. No technical challenges are specifically outlined in the affidavit. No technical improvements are indicated, other than “automation.” Furthermore, the affidavit stresses that the invention amounts to automation of a task which was previously required to be performed manually. Examiner respectfully notes that the mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process applications is not sufficient to show an improvement to computer-functionality. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process and a machine, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 11, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
generating an instance of a data structure for a music setlist that will be performed during a public performance hosted by a religious organization; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an instance of a data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
adding, to the instance of the data structure, a performance date at which the music setlist will be performed; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to the data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
adding, to the instance of the data structure, a first master identifier indicating a first entity that owns the first master audio recording; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to the data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
adding, to the instance of the data structure, a first publishing identifier indicating a second entity that owns publishing rights to the first song; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to the data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
adding, to the instance of the data structure, a second master identifier indicating a third entity that owns the second master audio recording; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to the data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
adding, to the instance of the data structure, a second publishing identifier indicating a fourth entity that owns publishing rights to the second song; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to the data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
and automatically reporting the music setlist to a collective management organization after a predetermined period of time following the performance date. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could report the music setlists after a predetermined period of time following a performance date; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim in the form of pre-solution data gathering). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system for auto-reporting public music performances, the system comprising: one or more memory devices for storing instructions; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and one or more processing devices configured to execute the instructions to: (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and automatically reporting the music setlist after a predetermined period of time following the performance date. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of requiring the reporting to be done “automatically” represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
receiving, from a user, a first master audio recording of a first song to add to the music setlist; (Claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim in the form of pre-solution data gathering). See MPEP 2106.05(g)
receiving, from the user, a second master audio recording of a second song to add to the music setlist; (Claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim in the form of pre-solution data gathering). See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The following limitations have been characterized above as extra-solution activity:
receiving, from a user, a first master audio recording of a first song to add to the music setlist; (Claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network as well as storing or retrieving information in memory)
receiving, from the user, a second master audio recording of a second song to add to the music setlist; (Claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network as well as storing or retrieving information in memory)
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 12:
further comprising locking the music setlist to prevent changes after the music setlist is reported.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could stop others from changing a music setlist once it has been reported; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance.
Claims 3 and 13:
further comprising: receiving, from the user, a third master audio recording of the first song to add to the music setlist;
adding, to the instance of the data structure, a third master identifier indicating a fifth entity that owns the third master audio recording;
and adding, to the instance of the data structure, a third publishing identifier indicating the second entity that owns the publishing rights to the first song.
Regarding the adding steps, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to the data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance. Regarding the receiving step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim in the form of pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network as well as storing or retrieving information in memory.
Claims 4 and 14:
wherein the music setlist further includes an indication of whether song lyrics will be displayed during the public performance.
This limitation merely alters the setlist used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 5 and 15:
wherein the indication further indicates whether the song lyrics will be projected or printed.
This limitation merely alters the indication used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 6 and 16:
wherein the music setlist further includes an indication of whether the public performance will be streamed online.
This limitation merely alters the setlist used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 7 and 17:
wherein automatically reporting the music setlist further includes generating a record update based on the instance of the data structure.
Regarding the generation step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a record update based on an instance of a data structure; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance.
Claims 8 and 18:
wherein the instance of the data structure further includes an identifier of the religious organization associated with the public performance, wherein generating the record update further includes determining a size of the religious organization based on the identifier of the religious organization.
Regarding the generation step and determining step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a record update based on an instance of a data structure and identify the size of an organization based on this instance; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial copyright management companies would perform this step in reporting usage of music for the purposes of ensuring copyright compliance.
Claims 9 and 19:
wherein the first master audio recording includes a plurality of stems.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim in the form of pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network as well as storing or retrieving information in memory.
Claims 10 and 20:
wherein the first master audio recording includes a multitrack recording.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim in the form of pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network as well as storing or retrieving information in memory.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628