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
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 1-8 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 8) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
a similarity calculator configured to calculate a similarity between a completed piece of music including a target track to which a revenue is distributed for its creator and a comparative piece of music not including the target track in the completed piece of music (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
a distribution rate determiner configured to determine a distribution rate that is a rate of the revenue distribution for the creator of the target track with respect to a revenue generated from the completed piece of music based on the similarity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 8) is directed to a series of steps for determining a distribution rate that is a rate of the revenue distribution for the creator of the target track, which is a mental process. The mere nominal recitation of an apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program comprising computer-implemented nodes, does not take the claim out of the mental process. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 8) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: an apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program comprising computer-implemented nodes that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 8) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 8) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) calculates a similarity between a completed piece of music and a comparative piece of music, and b) determines a distribution rate that is a rate of revenue distribution for the creator of the target track with respect to a revenue generated from the completed piece of music based on similarity, c), etc., do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 8) is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2024/0427851 “Asaumi”, in view of US Pat 10,783,224 “Lyske”.
As per Claims 1 and 8, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a music revenue distribution program comprising:
a similarity calculator configured to calculate a similarity between a completed piece of music including a target track to which a revenue is distributed for its creator and a comparative piece of music not including the target track in the completed piece of music (Asaumi: [0100] Furthermore, after executing the audio source separation, the information processing apparatus 100 searches the store audio source storage unit 65 for an audio source similar to the audio source that has undergone the separation. For example, the information processing apparatus 100 determines similarity between the separated audio source and an audio source (material) stored in the store audio source storage unit 65 using a known similarity analysis function of determining similarity for each music or audio source, and extracts an audio source having a relatively high similarity.) ; and
a rate determiner configured to determine a rate that is a rate of the revenue for the creator of the target track with respect to a revenue generated from the completed piece of music based on the similarity (Asaumi: [0106] When the creator 20 adds an audio source to a track to be used for music production, the information processing apparatus 100 acquires rights information of the audio source. For example, the information processing apparatus 100 acquires, as the rights information, copyrights information assigned to the audio source. Furthermore, the information processing apparatus 100 acquires information related to use permission of the audio source, as the rights information. Specifically, the information processing apparatus 100 acquires information such as whether the audio source is permitted to be used for production of a different piece of music, a utilization time and a use portion permitted in a case where the audio source is used for production of the different piece of music, and a fee to be paid to the original copyright holder in a case where the audio source is used.).
Asaumi fails to disclose a music revenue distribution apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a music revenue distribution program comprising:
a distribution rate determiner configured to determine a distribution rate that is a rate of the revenue distribution for the creator of the target track with respect to a revenue generated from the completed piece of music based on the similarity.
Lyske teaches a music revenue distribution apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a music revenue distribution program comprising:
distribution rate determiner configured to determine a distribution rate that is a rate of the revenue distribution for the creator of the target track with respect to a revenue generated from the completed piece of music based on the similarity (Lyske: Column 21, lines 44-51, By adopting this client-side approach to tracking content, any uploaded media file that makes use of the Mashtraxx metadata can be seen in the context of the Label's stipulated use policy to allow for precise revenue distribution dependent upon specifically identified track usage. The system can, in fact, report on which parts of an entire audio track are used, and where in the derivative edit the use of the section occurred.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asaumi to include a distribution rate determiner as taught by Lyske, with the music revenue distribution apparatus as taught by Asaumi with the motivation of to administer control over compiled and up-loaded media clips or files intended for wider public distribution through download or streaming (Lyske: Column 1, lines 20-22)
As per Claim 2, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus, wherein the distribution rate determiner increases the distribution rate for the creator as the similarity is lower (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]).
As per Claim 3, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus, the apparatus further comprising
a comparative music generator configured to generate data of the comparative piece of music by excluding data of the target track from data of the completed piece of music (Asaumi: [0100]-[0102]),
wherein the similarity calculator compares the data of the completed piece of music with the data of the comparative piece of music and calculates the similarity based on a comparison result (Asaumi: [0100]-[0102]).
As per Claim 4, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus, the apparatus further comprising
an evaluation value calculator configured to calculate an overall evaluation value that is an evaluation value of the completed piece of music evaluated by a listener and a partial evaluation value that is an evaluation value of the comparative piece of music evaluated by the listener (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]),
wherein the similarity calculator calculates the similarity based on the overall evaluation value and the partial evaluation value (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]).
As per Claim 5, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus, the apparatus further comprising
an evaluation value calculator configured to calculate an overall evaluation value that is an evaluation value of the completed piece of music evaluated by a listener and a partial evaluation value that is an evaluation value of the comparative piece of music evaluated by the listener (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]),
wherein the similarity calculator calculates the similarity based on the overall evaluation value and the partial evaluation value (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]).
As per Claim 6, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus, wherein
the evaluation value calculator calculates the overall evaluation value and the partial evaluation value for a plurality of timings in a duration of the completed piece of music and the comparative piece of music (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]), and
the similarity calculator calculates the similarity based on a correlation between the overall evaluation value and the partial evaluation value at the plurality of timings (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]).
As per Claim 7, Asaumi discloses a music revenue distribution apparatus, wherein
the evaluation value calculator calculates the overall evaluation value and the partial evaluation value for a plurality of timings in a duration of the completed piece of music and the comparative piece of music (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]), and
the similarity calculator calculates the similarity based on a correlation between the overall evaluation value and the partial evaluation value at the plurality of timings (Asaumi: [0151] and [0223]-[0227]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627