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 1-11, 13-14 and 16-22 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 1-11, 13-14 and 16-22 are directed to an abstract idea of song generation.
Specifically, representative claim 13 recites:
A system comprising at least one computing device and at least one storage device storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
(a) acquiring a target lyric text input by a user;
(b) aligning the target lyric text with a singing melody of an initial song, to determine correspondence between text units in the target lyric text and notes in the singing melody, wherein the singing melody is a singing melody of initial lyrics in the initial song;
(c) performing voice synthesis on the target lyric text based on the correspondence between the text units in the target lyric text and the notes in the singing melody, to obtain a singing voice singing the target lyric text with the singing melody; and
(d) combining the singing voice with an accompaniment audio of the initial song to generate a target song.
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), the limitation (b) recited in the bolded portion 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. For example, the singing melody of an initial song can be represented in standard music notation by mapping its pitch onto a staff and its rhythm using note symbols. The process of aligning the target lyric text with the singing melody of an initial song then can be performed merely by a human with the aid of pan/paper, while “determine correspondence between …” can be performed by the human using mental steps or basic critical thinking.
Under its BRI, the limitation (c) encompasses a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity. For example, the recited voice synthesis can be performed by a person to sing the lyric text through vocal tract following the music notation of the singing melody as claimed.
The USPTO addressed speech processing directly in its July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (Example 48). The guidance clarifies that while computerized speech synthesis (like stitching waveforms from mathematical data) is patent-eligible because it cannot be practically performed in the human mind, any method that relies on or mimics basic human action or mental selection lacks eligibility unless it is integrated into a distinct technical system or machine.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “method of organizing human activity” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Claim 13 recites the additional limitations in relation to a computing device and at least one storage device storing computer executable instructions at a high level of generality. These limitations do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the system to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). According to 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.
Under its BRI, the limitation (a) encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to generate auxiliary battery usage state information for an external electronic device.
Under its BRI, the limitation (d) encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity of outputting the results generated by the identified abstract idea, which does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 13 is directed to an abstract idea of generating a new song based on a singing melody of an existing song and customized lyrics text. Each or the combination of the additional limitations in the claim amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data-gathering and post-solution activity of outputting the results from the judicial exception. The computer-related limitations read on instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. All the additional limitations/elements recited in claim 13 are considered well-understood, routine, or conventional. Noting in these additional limitations/elements amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. In particular, a human simply performing speech synthesis (such as an impressionist, voice actor, or a person using basic anatomical training) with an accompaniment audio of the initial song does not introduce a novel or improvement to computer and/or music generation technology. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 16-19 inherit attributes of the independent claim 13, 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 1-11, 14 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 13 and 16-19 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 1-3, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (CN 110189741 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, Cui discloses a system and a method of operating the system including a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one computing device of the system, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
acquiring a target lyric text input by a user (par. 43, referring to Fig. 1: "the terminal 110 can acquire target text … the self-made song uses the acquired target text as lyrics"; step S202 - "acquire the target text", and par. 45, 46, 47; see also Fig. 3);
aligning the target lyric text (par. 73, 105) with a singing melody ("tune" in par. 49) of an initial song (step S204, par. 49), to determine correspondence between text units in the target lyric text and notes in the singing melody (par. 105), wherein the singing melody is a singing melody of initial lyrics in the initial song (par. 49);
performing voice synthesis on the target lyric text based on the correspondence between the text units in the target lyric text and the notes in the singing melody, to obtain a singing voice singing the target lyric text with the singing melody (par. 73); and
combining the singing voice (par. 96, 100) with an accompaniment audio (par. 60) of the initial song to generate a target song (par. 123).
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 20, Cui discloses: before aligning the target lyric text with the singing melody of an initial song, selecting the initial song from a plurality of preset songs in response to a selection operation of the initial song and determining the singing melody and accompaniment audio corresponding to the initial song (par. 50, 59, 60, 64, 90).
Regarding claims 3, 17 and 21, Cui discloses: wherein the aligning the target lyric text with the singing melody of an initial song comprises: splitting the singing melody into a plurality of melody paragraphs and splitting the target lyric text into a plurality of lyric paragraphs wherein a number of the plurality of lyric paragraphs is the same as that of the plurality of melody paragraphs (par. 105); and aligning the plurality of lyric paragraphs with the plurality of melody paragraphs one to one, to determine correspondence (by inherency, syllables are spoken labels assigned to specific notes, acting as a bridge between abstract pitch symbols and human perception) between text units (“typically one syllable represents one character”) in the plurality of lyric paragraphs and notes in corresponding melody paragraphs (par. 98-99, 105).
Regarding claim 7, Cui discloses: wherein the splitting the target lyric text into the plurality of lyric paragraphs comprises: performing word segmentation on the target lyric text, determining a part of speech corresponding to each word (par. 98-99, 105), and splitting the target lyric text into the plurality of lyric paragraphs based on the part of speech corresponding to each word, a predefined linguistic rule (par. 90, 99) and a length of the singing melody (par. 86: “it can use one model to achieve end-to-end (target text to self-made song) conversion”).
Regarding claim 10, Cui discloses: wherein the aligning the plurality of lyric paragraphs with the plurality of melody paragraphs one to one comprises: establishing correspondence between the plurality of lyric paragraphs and the plurality of melody paragraphs, and corresponding text units in a lyric paragraph with notes in a melody paragraph having correspondence with the lyric paragraph (par. 86, 90, 99, 105).
Regarding claim 11, Cui discloses: wherein: the target lyric text is split into a plurality of lyric paragraphs based on a part of speech corresponding to each word and the predefined linguistic rule to make inseparable phrases located in a same lyric paragraph after splitting (par. 86, 90, 99, 105)
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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. in view of Luan et al. (CN 108806656 A, machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Cui discloses or renders obvious the recited limitation of claim 8 except for: aligning the plurality of lyric paragraphs with the plurality of melody paragraphs by using alignment templates.
Luan teaches a system/method of automatically generating a song, comprising: aligning a plurality of lyric paragraphs with a plurality of melody paragraphs by using alignment templates (par. 43: “the template generation module 230 may determine the distribution of the lyrics 204, such as the number of lyrics for each measure, and the like, determine the duration of each phoneme of each word, the pitch trajectory and the pitch trajectory, etc., thereby combining the melody”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Luan’s teaching of alignment templates into Cui to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that the skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. 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 generating a new song based on a singing melody of an existing song and customized lyrics text, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the limitations recited in instant claims 4-6, 9, 18-19 and 22. As such, claims 4-6, 9, 18-19 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 as set forth in sections 2-3 above in this Office action.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al., Lyrics2Song: An Automatic Song Generator for Lyrics Input, 2020 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR)
Mesaros, Singing voice identification and lyrics transcription for music information retrieval, IEEE Xplore, 2013 7th Conference on Speech Technology and Human - Computer Dialogue (SpeD)
Lee et al., WORD LEVEL LYRICS-AUDIO SYNCHRONIZATION USING SEPARATED VOCALS, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)
Gupta, Deep Learning Approaches in Topics of Singing Information Processing, IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON AUDIO, SPEECH, AND LANGUAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 30, 2022
Contact Information
10. 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