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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on November 28, 2025 for the patent application 17/390,160 originally filled on July 30, 2021. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 are pending. Claims 3 and 12 have been previously cancelled. The second office action of May 28, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this final action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 28, 2025 has 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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a “method” (i.e., a process), claim 15 is directed to a “system” (i.e., a machine), and claim 18 is directed to an “non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
The independent claims recite the following limitations:
Per Claim 1:
“A method for revising a musical performance to improve a user's mental state, comprising: receiving at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of a user; periodically determining a mental state of the user based on the at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of the user; determining a baseline mental state; determining a musical performance that improves the mental state of the user to the baseline mental state; and providing a request to an electronic device to provide the musical performance to the user, wherein the user interacts with various musical elements of the musical performance during the user's conducting of the musical performance that includes physical movements, the physical movements including one or more arm movements for the conducting of the musical performance detectable by a sensor in the form of a conducting device held in a hand of the user; in response to determining that the mental state of the user meets the baseline mental state: receiving data indicative of a segment of the musical performance provided to the user on the electronic device; determining a set of changes to one or more musical elements of the musical performance that improve the mental state of the user to achieve the baseline mental state, wherein determining the set of changes to the one or more musical elements of the musical performance comprises: analyzing a plurality of changes to one or more musical elements of one or more previously-provided musical performances provided to one or more other users, wherein at least one of the one or more changes correlate to physical movements of the one or more other users; and selecting one or more of the plurality of changes that improved responses of the one or more other users; providing a second request to the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance to incorporate the set of changes; and applying the one or more of the plurality of changes to the one or more musical elements using a processor of the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance to improve the user's mental state.”
Per Claim 15:
“A system for revising a musical performance to improve a user's mental state, the system comprising: a storage medium; and one or more processors configured to: receive at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of a user; periodically determine a mental state of the user based on the at least one physical, biological, and neurological expression of the user; determine a baseline mental state; determine a musical performance that improves the mental state of the user to the baseline mental state; provide a request to an electronic device to provide the musical performance to the user, wherein the user interacts with various musical elements of the musical performance during the user's conducting of the musical performance that includes physical movements, the physical movements including one or more arm movements for the conducting of the musical performance detectable by a sensor in the form of a conducting device held in a hand of the user; in response to determining that the mental state of the user meets the baseline mental state: receive data indicative of a segment of the musical performance provided to the user on the electronic device; determine a set of changes to one or more musical elements of the musical performance that improve the mental state of the user to achieve the baseline mental state, wherein determining the set of changes to the one or more musical elements of the musical performance comprises: analyze a plurality of changes to one or more musical elements of one or more previously-provided musical performances provided to one or more other users, wherein at least one of the one or more changes correlate to physical movements of the one or more other users; and select one or more of the plurality of changes that improved responses of the one or more other users; provide a second request to the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance to incorporate the set of changes; and apply the one or more of the plurality of changes to the one or more musical elements using a processor of the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance to improve the user's mental state.”
Per Claim 18:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for revising a musical performance to improve a user's mental state, comprising: receiving at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of a user; periodically determining a mental state of a user based on at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of the user based on the at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of the user; determining a baseline mental state; determining a musical performance that improves the mental state of the user to the baseline mental state; and providing a request to an electronic device to provide the musical performance to the user, wherein the user interacts with various musical elements of the musical performance during the user's conducting of the musical performance that includes physical movements, the physical movements including one or more arm movements for the conducting of the musical performance detectable by a sensor in the form of a conducting device held in a hand of the user; in response to determining that the mental state of the user meets the baseline mental state: receiving data indicative of a segment of the musical performance provided to the user on the electronic device; determining a set of changes to one or more musical elements of the musical performance that improve the mental state of the user to exceed the baseline mental state by a threshold amount, wherein determining the set of changes to the one or more musical elements of the musical performance comprises: analyzing a plurality of changes to one or more musical elements of one or more previously-provided musical performances provided to one or more other users, wherein at least one of the one or more changes correlate to physical movements of the one or more other users; and selecting one or more of the plurality of changes that improved responses of the one or more other users; providing a second request to the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance to incorporate the set of changes and applying the one or more of the plurality of changes to the one or more musical elements using a processor of the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance to improve the user's mental state.”
The non-highlighted sections of the above limitations, as drafted, define a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of “one or more processors”, ”sensor”, “electronic device”, “conducting device” and “storage medium”, nothing in the above limitations precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the recited language, the limitations above encompass observing the movements and expressions of the user, evaluating the user’s mental state, and determining a musical performance or modifications to a musical performance that will change the mental state of the user in a desired way.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Hence, the limitations of independent claims 1, 15, and 18 are drawn to an abstract idea of “determine a musical performance that improves the mental state of the user” which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in terms of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of ““one or more processors”, ”sensor”, “electronic device”, “conducting device”, and “storage medium” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed abstract idea of “providing recipe instruction” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “one or more processors” (Specification para. [0045]), ”sensor” (Specification para. [0012]), “electronic device” (Specification para. [0018]), “conducting device” (Specification para. [0019]) and “storage medium” (Specification para. [0045]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-14 are dependent from claim 1, claims 16-17 are dependent from claim 15, and claims 19-20 are dependent from claim 18; these dependent claims include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitation of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claims 2, 7, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 merely recite at the program will cyclically see how the musical performance has impacted the user in order the better recommend a new performance. As such the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 4-5 simply denote the process of weighting the various properties of the songs. As such, these claims merely further recite a method of classifying/sorting the music properties and are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 2 and 14 simply describe different pieces of data that are used by the program. As such, these claims merely recite the types of data used and are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2, 4-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Response to Arguments
The Applicants arguments filed on November 28, 2025 related to claims 1-20 are fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101 Section I.
Applicant denotes that the office characterizes the claims as reciting "revising a musical performance to improve a user's mental state" and equates the claims to mental processes and to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results" (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Respectfully, Applicant argues that this characterization omits key claim requirements that (i) require specific sensor-based data acquisition that cannot be performed in the human mind; (ii) implement a closed-loop control pipeline that computes control signals for an audio synthesis/playback engine; and (iii) revise, in real time, a digital audio signal presented to the user based on empirically derived mappings from multi-user datasets. The claims go well beyond data collection and reporting.
Regarding key claim requirement (i), this claim requirement falls into the “collection of information”. No specific type of sensor is mentioned in the claim limitations aside from the “conducting device”, which as described in paragraph [0019] of the specification device may include a “smartphone, smart watch, tablet computers, electronic accessories (e.g., electronic pens), as well as non-electronic apparatuses”, this is reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Regarding key claim requirement (ii), this is simply display, i.e. playing of musical performance. Regarding key claim requirement (iii), this is simply analysis, i.e. determining revisions to make based on the acquired data. However, examiner agrees that Electric Power Group is not an ideal comparison and is not utilized in the rejection under 35 USC § 101 above.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101 Section II.
Applicant respectfully argues that the claims recite concrete, technology-focused operations that cannot be performed as mental steps. The independent claims require, among other things, detecting physical movements "including one or more arm movements... detectable by a sensor in the form of a conducting device held in a hand of the user," receiving multi-modal physiological or neurological signals, determining a baseline mental state from those signals, and "applying ... changes to the one or more musical elements using a processor of the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance." Applicant further argues that these limitations tether the claims to specific sensor hardware and audio processing that cannot be carried out in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Regarding the detection of physical movements, this is simply an observation, i.e. a mental process. Regarding the “receiving multi-modal physiological or neurological signals”, the claim limitations as current only denote “determining a mental state of the user based on the at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of the user”. As currently claimed, this simply describes a judgment of the user’s mental state, i.e. a mental process. Regarding the "applying ... changes to the one or more musical elements using a processor of the electronic device to revise the segment of the musical performance", this simply recites a judgement on a how a musical piece should be changed; a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process, as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101 Section III.
Applicant respectfully argues that the claims recite a particularized technological solution: a closed-loop control system that uses concrete sensor inputs and empirically derived mappings to alter an electronic device's audio output in real time to produce a specific effect on a user's mental state, thus constitute a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and does not find this argument persuasive. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a);
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); or
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).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
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); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first four bulleted factors above. The processor programmatically modifying musical elements of an active audio stream segment in response to a computed mental state and user gesture signals simply fall into the category of 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).
Rejections under 35 USC § 101 Section IV.
Applicant respectfully argues that the ordered combination of elements recited in the independent claims is not well- understood, routine, or conventional. The claims require a specific arrangement that integrates:
a sensor-equipped conducting device that captures a user's arm movements as time-series input;
multi-modal physiological/neurological/biological signals acquired contemporaneously;
a baseline mental state model and ongoing computation of deviation from baseline;
analysis of a multi-user dataset correlating movement features to improved responses;
selection of a set of changes to specific musical elements based on those correlations; and
real-time application of those changes by a processor of the electronic device to revise the current segment of the musical performance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding point 1, the “conducting device” as described in paragraph [0019] of the specification device may include a “smartphone, smart watch, tablet computers, electronic accessories (e.g., electronic pens), as well as non-electronic apparatuses”, this is reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Regarding point 2, the claim limitations as current only denote “determining a mental state of the user based on the at least one physical, biological, or neurological expression of the user”; as currently claimed, this simply describes a judgment of the user’s mental state, i.e. a mental process. Regarding point 3, this is simply a constant observation of a user’s mental state, i.e. a mental process. Regarding points 4-5, this is simply a judgement on how the musical performance should be modified. Regarding point 6, this is simply 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).
Rejections under 35 USC § 101 Section V.
Applicant respectfully argues that the "determining a mental state," "determining a baseline mental state," and "determining a musical performance," are not mental processes as they require sensor acquisition and processor execution.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, "determining a mental state," "determining a baseline mental state," and "determining a musical performance" fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in terms of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The Applicant’s claimed elements of ““one or more processors”, ”sensor”, “electronic device”, “conducting device”, and “storage medium” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Applicant respectfully argues that the claims do not merely display or report data; they generate audio control signals and apply those signals to an active audio buffer to revise playback within a bounded latency window.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This “audio buffer” and “bounded latency window” is not present in the independent claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715