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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of a preliminary amendment filed 10/25/2024. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-16 and 18-21 remain pending, Claims 20-21 have been newly added, and Claim 17 have been canceled. Currently, Claims 3, 9, 13-16, and 18-19 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
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, 5-10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5-10, 18, and 19 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 19 recites, in part, the limitations of […] and […]. […]: displaying an interactive interface on a first preset area of a display interface of a terminal device, the interactive interface comprising a preset music score control; obtaining, in response to a touch event on the music score control, music note information of the music score control corresponding to the touch event; and displaying and recording, on a second preset area of the display interface a music note corresponding to the music note information. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 19 (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 1 and 18). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 19 recites the additional element(s) of a processor; and a memory, storing executable instructions of the processor (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 19). These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, share data, and update data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 19, 1, and 18 rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 5-10 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 19 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 5-10 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 19. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 19, Claims 5-10 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
However, in light of the 2019 PEG, dependent claim(s) 2-4, 11-16, and 20-21 appears to meet the requirements of §101 as dependent claim(s) 2-4, 11-16, and 20-21 are not merely abstract steps/rules that would be considered a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process. Thus, dependent claim(s) 2-4, 11-16, and 20-21 have not been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daisy (US 2011/0023688 A1) (henceforth, “Daisy”).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, Daisy teaches an electronic device and method comprising: a processor (Para. 87-91); and a memory, storing executable instructions of the processor (Para. 87-91), wherein the processor is configured to implement, by executing the executable instructions, actions comprising: displaying an interactive interface on a first preset area of a display interface of a terminal device, the interactive interface comprising a preset music score control (e.g., score section 202 in Fig. 2A and Para. 32); obtaining, in response to a touch event on the music score control, music note information of the music score control corresponding to the touch event (e.g., prompt and score arrangement in Para. 34 and Fig. 2C); and displaying and recording, on a second preset area of the display interface a music note corresponding to the music note information (e.g., recording in Para. 5, Para. 83, Para. 86 and Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 5, Daisy teaches displaying, in a first display manner, the music score control corresponding to the touch event on the interactive interface, and displaying, in a second display manner, another music score control than the music score control corresponding to the touch event on the interactive interface, wherein the touch event comprises at least one of a first touch event inputted through a plurality of fingers, a second touch event inputted through a single finger, or a third touch event inputted through an external device (e.g., prompt and score arrangement in Para. 34 and Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 6, Daisy teaches adjusting, in response to ending of the touch event, the music score control corresponding to the touch event from the first display manner to the second display manner (Para. 40-41).
Regarding claim 7, Daisy teaches displaying and recording, on the second preset area of the display interface, the music note corresponding to the music note information comprises: scrolling and displaying, at a first preset scrolling speed, the music note corresponding to the music note information on the second preset area of the display interface in real time, wherein during the scrolling and displaying, a position at which a cursor stays is a position at which a last music note among recorded notes is located (e.g., recording in Para. 5, Para. 83, Para. 86 and Fig. 3A and Para. 40-41).
Regarding claim 8, Daisy teaches when the touch event is the first touch event inputted through the plurality of fingers, the music note is displayed in a manner of: sequentially displaying the music notes of the preset music score controls corresponding to the first touch event according to a sequence of an arrangement position of the preset music score control corresponding to the first touch event on the interactive interface (Para. 7, Para. 11, and Para. 37-39).
Regarding claim 9, Daisy teaches converting, in response to a touch operation on a scene mode control, the display interface from a music score creation scene to a music score editing scene; and editing, in response to a selection operation of a recorded music note on the second display area, the recorded music note corresponding to the selection operation, wherein editing the recorded music note corresponding to the selection operation comprises at least one of: deleting the recorded music note corresponding to the selection operation; replacing the recorded music note corresponding to the selection operation; or inserting another music note at a position of the recorded music note corresponding to the selection operation (e.g., edit in Para. 34, Para. 39, Para. 65 and Para. 37-39).
Regarding claim 10, Daisy teaches converting, in response to a touch operation on a scene mode control, the display interface from a music score editing scene to a music score publishing scene; configuring, in response to a selection operation of music score attribute information comprised in the music score publishing scene, a music score detail page for a current music score generated according to the music note; and publishing, in response to a touch operation on a publishing control comprised in the music score publishing scene, the current music score and the music score detail page (Figs. 9 and 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 11-16, and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights