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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “602” has been used to designate two separate elements in Figures 6 and 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 9, reference number 618 is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
In paragraphs [0053] and [0055], reference number 202 is mentioned, but fails to appear in the Drawings.
In paragraph [0058], reference number 302 is mentioned, but fails to appear in the Drawings.
In paragraphs [0091] and [0093], reference number 902 is mentioned, but fails to appear in the Drawings.
In paragraph [0093], reference number 918 is mentioned, but fails to appear in the Drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In terms of claim 1, lines 9-10, please clarify whether “individual segments of the multiple segments”, are either the time segments or frequency segments, or different segments all together.
Further in claim 1, lines 8-10, it is recited that individual output embeddings are derived from individual segments. In lines 12-14, individual training segment embeddings of multiple training segment embeddings are recited. Please clarify, similar to the output embeddings, from where the training segment embeddings are derived.
Claim 2, lines 2-3 and 5-6, please clarify from where the multiple time training segments and multiple frequency training segments come.
Further in claim 2, lines 3-4 and 6-7, it is recited that music based training data is used to train the generative artificial intelligence to create a time/frequency segment cluster. Please clarify whether this data is related to the multiple content items also used to train the artificial intelligence.
Claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons as presented in claim 2.
Claim 6, line 2, please clarify whether “a composition and style artificial intelligence” is related to the previously recited generative artificial intelligence.
Claim 6, lines 4-5, please clarify whether “multiple composition segments” and “multiple recording style segments” are related to the previously mentioned multiple segments, time segments, frequency segments or individual segments.
Further in claim 6, lines 7-8, please clarify in what element composition similarities and recording style similarities are identified.
Claim 7, line 3, please clarify whether “a set of music-based content items” are related to the previously recited multiple content items.
Claim 7, line 5, it is recited that a plurality of captions are merely determined, however, there is no recitation of how a user may view or see these captions in relation to the music-based content items. Therefore, given a user cannot view these captions, and thus utilize them, it is unclear the purpose of such captions within the method.
Further in claim 7, lines 7-9, it is recited “creating, based on the plurality of captions, a plurality of content item embeddings, individual content item embeddings corresponding to individual content items of the set of music=based content items”. The wording is indefinite, please clarify whether the individual content item embeddings are also created or part of the created plurality of content item embeddings.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 2.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 7.
The remaining claims not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite segmenting, generating, determining and correlating data, and initiating compensation.
These limitations, as drafted, are method steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, that cover performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer-implemented method”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, “generating” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or constructing elements.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computer or processing circuitry. The computer and circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer or circuitry amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are believed to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record that could be found at this time are the US patent application publications to Jakobsson et al. (US 2023/0075884 & US 2022/0398538), Dvorak et al. (US 2022/0043965), Ma et al. (US 2022/0350828), Aykut et al. (US 2024/0419949 & US 2024/0152544), O’Neill (US 2024/0256592), Sheffer et al. (US 2014/0338515), and Renshaw et al. (US 2006/0112098).
Once a formal response is filed, a further search and consideration of the prior art will be conducted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 02/03/2026