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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 4-8 and 13-17 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection for claims 1-20, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-3, 11-12, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. abstract idea rejection, the Applicant cites McRO, dba. Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco, 2015-1080, Fed. Cir. 2016. They assert that the operations performed in claim 1 as currently amended differ from human-performed methods of estimating a speed change ratio between two audio samples. They assert that claim 1, as currently amended, recites steps that could not be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, specifically the steps of “extracting a set of first audio features from the first audio sample and a set of second audio features from the second audio sample” and “computing a similarity matrix including a plurality of similarity values between the set of first audio features and the set of second audio features.” The Applicant also asserts that claim 1, as currently amended, recites an ordered combination of features that provide a technical improvement to modified music detection, and this therefore integrates any alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original claims, and the claims as amended, in their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a system and method for obtaining, processing, analyzing, and outputting data (i.e., audio samples). This is an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) as well as various mathematical operations (i.e., computing a similarity matrix). The steps of obtaining and processing the audio samples could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning, save for the recitation of generic computing components in claims 2, 12, and 20. Further, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The data gathering and analysis steps required to perform the method do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere data gathering and analysis do not provide an inventive concept. With respect to claims 2, 12, and 20, the additional element of “a feature extraction neural network” is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on a computer or using computer devices and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The “a feature extraction neural network” is recited at such a high-level of generality and is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea faster or more efficiently. There is no reasonable improvement to the functioning of the data obtaining, processing, analyzing, outputting, the computational system as a whole, or to any other technology or technical field. It appears the Applicant is merely forming and restating that the claim is significantly more without providing any specific instances as to how or why. The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 11-12, and 20, the Applicant has incorporated subject matter previously denoted as allowable but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “receive a first audio sample and a second audio sample”, “determine a speed change ratio between the first audio sample and the second audio sample”, “extracting a set of first audio features from the first audio sample and a set of second audio features from the second audio sample”, “computing a similarity matrix”, “identifying a plurality of peak points”, “identifying one or more peak lines”, “computing respective candidate slopes between the peak point and a plurality of candidate endpoints”, “determining whether the candidate slope is within a predefined slope range”, “adding the candidate slope and the candidate endpoint to a candidate line map”, “computing the speed change ratio”, and “output the speed change ratio". These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person taking in audio samples, extracting features from them, computing a similarity between these features, finding peak points and peak lines, computing candidate slopes between the peak points, determining if a candidate slope is within a specific range, adding the candidate slope and endpoint to a line map, computing a speed change ratio between the two audio samples, and outputting the speed change ratio.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to a method of audio comparison, and the data gathering and analysis steps required to perform the method do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1 and 11 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the data gathering and analysis steps required to perform the method do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere data gathering and analysis do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 20 includes an additional element of “a feature extraction neural network”, but this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, 18-19, and 21-23 are directed to describing the identification of the peak points and lines. These limitations are also related to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person taking in audio samples, extracting features from them, computing a similarity between these features, finding peak points and peak lines, and computing a speed ratio between the two audio samples.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the independent claims including steps of “wherein identifying the one or more peak lines includes, for each peak point included in a subset of the plurality of peak points: computing respective candidate slopes between the peak point and a plurality of candidate endpoints included among the plurality of peak points; and for each of the candidate endpoints: determining whether the candidate slope is within a predefined slope range; and adding the candidate slope and the candidate endpoint to a candidate line map if the candidate slope is within the predefined slope range”.
Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0165827) discloses receiving a first audio sample and a second audio sample, determining the first audio sample and the second audio sample at least in part by: extracting a set of first audio features from the first audio sample and a set of second audio features from the second audio sample, computing a similarity matrix including a plurality of similarity values between the set of first audio features and the set of second audio features, identifying a plurality of peak points in the similarity matrix, identifying one or more peak lines that each include two or more peak points, and computing based at least in part on one or more respective slopes of the one or more peak lines.
Wang et al. (US Patent No. 7,627,477) discloses the teaching of a speed change ratio.
Zhao et al. (CN114464214A) discloses extracting the set of first audio features and the set of second audio features at a feature extraction neural network.
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 ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights