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 .
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 describe an abstract idea of obtaining text data information from existing chord information using a machine learning (ML) model. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A text providing method comprising:
(a) providing chord input data to a trained model; and
(b) obtaining text corresponding to the chord input data from the trained model, wherein the trained model having learned a relationship between chord sequence data in which chords are aligned in chronological order, and explanatory text about the chords included in the chord sequence data.
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:
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1:
Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See bolded limitations above.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitation (b) encompasses a mental process, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. In light of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), a computing scheme (e.g., prediction) using a machine learning (ML) model is considered an "abstract idea" if the claim focuses solely on the concept of performing the computing using a generic machine learning algorithm, without any specific technical improvements or applications that go beyond the basic idea of using a computer to analyze data and generate predictions; essentially, if the claim is too high-level and does not describe a concrete, inventive implementation of the machine learning process. In the instant case, the clamed trained model obtained by machine learning simply applies a trained CNN, RNN, Attention, and the like to perform the cited limitation (b) by an arithmetic process (see Spec. para. [0011], [0015]-[0016]). The instant claim does not provide any detail about how the ML model is coupled to the CNN, RNN, etc. to generate/predict text out corresponding to the chord input data. Rather, the limitation (b) recites the outcome of the ML model which is used like a “black box AI” whose internal workings are a mystery of math concepts to its users. The limitation of the learned relationship between chord sequence data in which chords are aligned in chronological order and explanatory text is considered merely data characterization and is descriptive of the information being determined/processed, which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of music production. As such, the recitation of the trained model does not negate the mental nature of the limitation (b) because the claim here merely uses the ML model as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 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.
Under the BRI, the limitation (a) reads on merely a process step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It does not require
any particular devices or sensors that are specifically configured to perform the "providing chord input data".
As such, claim 1 would monopolize the identified abstract idea across a wide range of applications rather than integrate the judicial exception into a particular
practical application.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria:
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 effect 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 “core” of the representative claim 1 is directed to an algorithm of extracting text data information from existing chord information by using a machine learning (ML) model. Under the BRI, the claimed algorithm falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional limitation that would reflect an inventive concept or amount to more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 1-11 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for the same reason as for claims 1-11. Claim 12 recite a processor and a memory at a high level of generality. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Hence claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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 1-3, 6-9, 12-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 20220130357 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a text providing method (Abstract; para. 0032) comprising: providing chord input data (para. 0025) to a trained model (para. 0010: “a trained decoding model derived from the learning module to convert the input data into chord information, and a data output component configured to output chord information from the trained decoding”), the trained model having learned a relationship between chord sequence data in which chords are aligned in chronological order (para. 0003-0004, 0010, 0056-0058, 0065-0066), and explanatory text (e.g., para. 0031, 0040) about the chords included in the chord sequence data; and obtaining text corresponding to the chord input data from the trained model (para. 0031, 0040).
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses: wherein the chord input data includes vector data (para. 0054).
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses: wherein the chord input data includes chord data corresponding to a chord tone of a chord corresponding to the chord input data (e.g., para. 0010-0011: the measured brain activity of a subject during the listening of music labelled with chords or the extracted brain activity patterns from the raw brain activity data must encompass chord data corresponding to a chord tone of a chord; see also para. 0020: “the systems and methods described herein can provide a more efficient and more convenient way to transcribe, generate and record chords and chord progressions from their subjective perceptual or cognitive experiences”). wherein said chord input data includes a chroma vector corresponding to a chord tone of a chord corresponding to the chord input data (para. 0054: “When directly using the raw measurements as features of interest (i.e. X=M), …”).
Regarding claims 6-8, Ma discloses the claimed invention (para. 0031, 0040).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses: obtaining music chord data in which chords of a piece of music are aligned in chronological order (para. 0003-0004, 0010: “during the listening of music labelled with chords, a signal processing component to extract brain activity patterns”); and extracting a sequence of the chords, in a specific section of the piece of music satisfying a predetermined condition (e.g., corresponding to relevant chord labels of music), from the music chord data as the chord input data (para. 0020: “the systems and methods described herein can provide a more efficient and more convenient way to transcribe, generate and record chords and chord progressions from their subjective perceptual or cognitive experiences with no need of the participation of their motor functions (e.g. singing, speaking or writing)”; see also para. 0021, 0023).
Regarding claim 12, Ma discloses a text providing device (para. 0091), and a method for practicing the device, comprising: a control unit including a processor and a memory (para. 0032), wherein the control unit is configured to obtain text corresponding to chord input data (Abstract), in which chords are aligned in chronological order (para. 0003-0004), based on a relationship between chord sequence data, in which chords are aligned in chronological order (para. 0003-0004, 0010), and explanatory text related to the chords included in the chord sequence data (para. 0031, 0040).
Regarding claims 13 and 16-20, Ma discloses the claimed invention (see discussion for claims 1-3, 6-9 and 12 above).
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, 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 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15, Ma does not mention explicitly: wherein the chord input data includes a chroma vector corresponding to a bass note of a chord corresponding to the chord input data; wherein the chord input data includes a chroma vector corresponding to a tension note of a chord corresponding to the chord input data.
Examiner takes official notice that chord information data including a chroma vector corresponding to a bass note of a chord and a chroma vector corresponding to a tension note of a chord is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such well-known representation of characteristic chord information data into Ma’s decoding model (e.g., Ma, para. 0056-0058) to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that the skilled person would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Examiner’s Note
8. While there are related references that discuss AI-powered algorithm of obtaining text data information from existing chord information, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: wherein: the specific section of the music satisfies the predetermined condition in a case where an importance level of the sequence of the chords, in the specific section of the music, exceeds a threshold value, and the importance level of the sequence of the chords is determined based on respective index values of chords included in the sequence of chords, the respective index values being determined, at least in part, according to a key of the peace of the music, as recited in instant claim 10; and/or wherein: the specific section of the music satisfies the predetermined condition in a case where an importance level of the sequence of the chords, in the specific section of the music, exceeds a threshold value, and the importance level of the sequence of the chords is determined based on respective index values of chords included in the sequence of chords, the respective index values being determined, at least in part, according to a genre of the piece of the music, as recited in instant claim 11. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 10 and 11 in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as recited in independent claim 1 that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which make these claims distinguish over the prior art.
Contact Information
9. 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