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 Election/Restrictions
2. Per Applicants' response dated 03/18/2026, an election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-15 and 31-45. Claims 16-30 are cancelled by the Applicant. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 and 31-45 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 1-15 and 31-45 are directed to an abstract idea of developing songwriting suggestions.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A method for developing songwriting suggestions comprising:
(S1) receiving approval from one or more of artists or music labels to use one or more of an artist's voice, existing music, or likeness;
(S2) providing creative assistance integrated with at least one digital audio workstation by:
(S2.1) analyzing one or more compositions to identify one or more of musical context or structural patterns;
(S2.2) based at least in part on the one or more of musical context or structural patterns, and further based at least in part on one or more of user preferences or historical creative patterns, generating songwriting suggestions, the songwriting suggestions comprising:
one or more contextually appropriate suggestions for chord progressions based on harmonic analysis;
one or more melodic development suggestions;
one or more lyrical content suggestions;
one or more structural arrangement suggestions including verse-chorus organization; and
one or more instrumentation suggestions; and
(S2.3) generating or modifying one or more user-selected parts of the one or more compositions based at least in part on the songwriting suggestions, wherein the generating or modifying is performed by at least one artificial intelligence entity trained on data associated with the one or more of artists or music labels.
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.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations S2.1, S2.2 and S2.3 encompasses mental processes, namely concepts of data analysis, evaluation and/or judgement that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking or with aid of pen and paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
Further, in light of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), it is held that merely using machine learning models, such as an artificial neural network, to perform calculations that are otherwise abstract does not take the claimed limitation(s) out of the categories of abstract idea. In the instant case, the limitation “at least one artificial intelligence entity trained on data associated with the one or more of artists or music labels” is recited at a high level of generality, without specific details of how the “at least one artificial intelligence entity” is trained and how it functions to accomplish the claimed “generating or modifying” that go beyond the abstract idea of analyzing the input data and generating the output. Rather, the combination of the claimed “at least one artificial intelligence entity trained on data associated with the one or more of artists or music labels” only recites the outcome of the “at least one artificial intelligence entity” which is used like a “Black Box AI” hardware/software/mathematical tool, whose internal workings are a mystery of math concepts to its users, to perform an existing mental process. As such, the subject matter related to the “at least one artificial intelligence entity” is treated as part of the abstract idea identified for claim 1. See also the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (Example 48, claim 1, discussion of the deep neural network (DNN)).
Accordingly, the bolded portion encompasses a series of mental steps. Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within the “Mental Process” Grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under its BRI, the limitation S1 reads on merely gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites “at least one digital audio workstation” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, this limitation reads on a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As such, none of the additional elements in claim 1 can be treated to be qualified for a significantly more or meaningful. At most, they generally link the output of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
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 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. 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.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more.
In the instant case, as discussed above in Step 2A, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-14 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. These 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 15 and 31-45 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 1-14 illustrated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 and 31-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venti et al. (US 12347409 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Venti discloses a method and system for developing songwriting suggestions (col. 1, line 58 – col. 2, line 11; col. 17, lines 13-42) comprising:
receiving approval from one or more of artists or music labels to use one or more of an artist's voice, existing music, or likeness (col. 4, lines 53-65; see also discussion of the “original released music sources 102” in Fig. 11); providing creative assistance integrated with at least one digital audio workstation (e.g., server 12 in Fig. 1) by: analyzing one or more compositions (e.g., 22 Fig. 1) to identify one or more of musical context or structural patterns (col. 5, line 11 – col. 6, line 5); based at least in part on the one or more of musical context or structural patterns, and further based at least in part on one or more of user preferences (col. 17, lines 16-42), generating songwriting suggestions (col. 17, lines 28-42), the songwriting suggestions comprising: one or more contextually appropriate suggestions for chord progressions based on harmonic analysis (col. 5, lines 16-37; col. 9, lines 59-67); one or more melodic development suggestions (col. 5, lines 16-37; col. 9, lines 59-67); one or more lyrical content suggestions (col. 11, lines 12-24; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 19); one or more structural arrangement suggestions including verse-chorus organization (col. 5, lines 16-37); and one or more instrumentation suggestions (col. 12, lines 48-59); and generating or modifying one or more user-selected parts (col. 4, lines 21-26; col. 8, lines 19-22; col. 13, lines 58-61) of the one or more compositions based at least in part on the songwriting suggestions (col. 13, line 22 – col. 14, line 3), wherein the generating or modifying is performed by at least one artificial intelligence entity trained on data associated with the one or more of artists or music labels (col. 14, lines 53-57; col. 17, lines 1-30 and 43-67).
Regarding claims 2 and 31, Venti discloses: analyzing tempo and rhythm patterns to ensure musical coherence in suggestions (col. 5, lines 11-37; col. 9, lines 59-67; col. 10, lines 33-57).
Regarding claims 3 and 32, Venti discloses: generating alternative versions of suggested content with different emotional tones (col. 18, lines 16-28).
Regarding claims 4 and 33, Venti discloses: providing dynamic range and arrangement suggestions for different song sections (col. 11, lines 12-24; col. 12, lines 1-19 and 60-67).
Regarding claims 5 and 34, Venti discloses: analyzing market trends to suggest commercially viable musical directions (col. 4, lines 61-65; col. 15, lines 62-65; col. 18, lines 31-34).
Regarding claims 6 and 35, Venti discloses: providing real-time collaboration features for multiple artists working on a same composition (col. 16, lines 60-64; col. 18, lines 16-22).
Regarding claims 7 and 36, Venti discloses: performing at least one of analyzing successful song structures within specific genres to inform suggestions (col. 11, lines 54-62), or providing automated arrangement suggestions for different instrumental configurations (col. 12, lines 48-59).
Regarding claims 8 and 37, Venti discloses: generating percussion and drum pattern suggestions tailored to specific musical styles (col. 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding claims 9 and 38, Venti discloses: analyzing lyrical themes and suggesting complementary musical elements (col.11, lines 12-24).
Regarding claims 10 and 39, Venti discloses: providing copyright clearance verification for one or more of suggested content or generated content (col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 10).
Regarding claims 11 and 40, Venti discloses: performing at least one of generating suggestions for song endings and climactic sections, and generating suggestions for remix and variation opportunities (col. 5, lines 38-58).
Regarding claims 12 and 41, Venti discloses: providing personalized suggestion algorithms based on individual artist preferences (col. 7, line 57 – col. 8, line 4).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Venti discloses: analyzing emotional arc progression within songs to suggest appropriate musical development (col. 6, lines 6-67).
Regarding claims 14 and 43, Venti discloses: providing real-time feedback on commercial viability of suggested directions (col. 4, lines 61-65; col. 15, lines 62-65; col. 18, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 44, Venti discloses: wherein the instructions are configured such that the one or more processors are configured to implement one or more of the composition analysis module, the chord progression suggestion engine, the melodic development module, the lyrical content suggestion engine, the structural arrangement module, the instrumentation suggestion engine, or the real-time assistance interface (see Figs. 1, 3-5, 8 and 11 and related text, see also discussion for claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 45, Venti discloses: wherein the instructions are configured such that the one or more processors are configured to provide automated lyric translation services (col. 11, lines 12-24; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 19).
Contact Information
7. 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