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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 5–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The phrase “strengths and weaknesses” is a subjective term that lacks objective boundaries. The claims do not specify how such “strengths” or “weaknesses” are determined, measured, or defined. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. Claims 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The phrase “can be” renders the claim scope unclear because it is permissive and does not positively recite whether the system is required to perform the recited function. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims are not reasonably certain. The following is suggested language to overcome the indefiniteness identified above: Claim 14 (Amended) The digital audio system of claim 1, wherein the digital audio system is configured to communicate with a cloud-connected system and one or more other digital audio systems. Claim 15 (Amended) The digital audio system of claim 14, wherein a music instructor uses a first digital audio system and a music student uses a second digital audio system, and the digital audio system is configured to enable the music instructor to teach the music student in real time via communication between the first and second digital audio systems through the cloud-connected system. Claim 16 (Amended) The digital audio system of claim 14, wherein the digital audio system is configured to synchronize video performances of multiple musicians using respective digital audio systems via the cloud-connected system. The suggested amendments replace permissive language (“can be”) with affirmative functional language (“is configured to”) to clearly define the required capabilities of the claimed system and clarify the metes and bounds of the claims. Claim 5 For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of “neural network accelerator to determine strengths and weaknesses of the musician based on audio and/or visual data” of Claim 5, as a component configured to perform neural network-based processing of user performance data to evaluate aspects of musical performance. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the determination of “strengths and weaknesses” encompasses any analysis of performance characteristics derived from audio and/or visual input, including qualitative or quantitative evaluation, and does not require a specific evaluation algorithm or output format. The term “neural network accelerator” is interpreted as a component configured to execute or facilitate neural network processing, including hardware and/or software implementations. Claim 6 For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “recommends musical content to the musician based upon the weaknesses and strengths” of Claim 6, as a system configured to generate output content based on the results of performance analysis. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recommendation encompasses any selection or presentation of musical content informed by analyzed performance data, without requiring a specific recommendation technique or model. Claim 14 For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of Claim 14, “can be in communication with a cloud-connected system with other digital audio systems” as a system “ configured to communicate with a cloud-connected system and one or more other digital audio systems ” . Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, communication includes transmitting, receiving, or sharing data between devices, and does not require a specific communication protocol, architecture, or infrastructure. Claim 1 5 For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of Claim 15, “ can be on a first digital audio system… to teach… in real time… via communication through the cloud-connected system ” as a system “ configured to enable the music instructor to teach the music student in real time via communication between . Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “enable” encompasses providing communication of audio, video, or other performance-related data sufficient to support instruction, and “real time” includes near real-time or sufficiently prompt interaction. Claim 16 For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of Claim 16, “ can be on separate digital audio systems to synchronize each of the musicians' video performance via the cloud connected system ” as a system configured to synchronize video performances of multiple musicians using respective digital audio systems via the cloud-connected system . Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, synchronization includes simultaneous or coordinated playback or display of performance data and does not require precise temporal alignment unless explicitly recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1 , 2, 4,7-8,10,11,17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US Pub 20070234880, Oct. 11, 2007) , hereinafter Adams , in view of Pezeshkian (US Pub 20190371287) , hereinafter Pezeshkian . Regarding Claim 1 , Adams discloses ‘ A portable digital audio system for a musician (Adams, [Fig.1], [Fig.3] ¶[0 037] “The form factor of standalone module 34 is designed for portable use and ease of transport and interchanged between receiving devices ” , an electronic module forming the structural component of the system ) , the digital audio system (Adams, ¶[0 033]”FIG. 3 illustrates electronic module 34 inserted directly into amplifier and speaker system 35” ) comprising: an amplifier for processing an audio signal from a musical instrument or microphone electronically connected to the digital audio system (Adams, ¶[0 005] “The electric signals are routed to an external amplifier and speaker system which produces the sound” , signals generated by the device are transmitted to another processing component ) ; a speaker for playing a sound associated with the audio signal processed by the amplifier ( Adams, ¶[0 005] ”The electric signals are routed to an external amplifier and speaker system which produces the sound” , communication between the module and processing circuitry ) ; an audio control system providing operational control of the digital audio system (Adams, ¶[0 035] “ electronic module 34 … The electronic module is programmed to control the operation … including sending and receiving analog and/or digital signals” , indicates the module includes electrical interconnections enabling operation of system components ) ; a primary housing for supporting the amplifier, the audio control system, and the speaker ( Adams, ¶[0 033] ”FIG. 3 illustrates electronic module 34 inserted directly into amplifier and speaker system 35” , f igure and description show the structure and internal components of the module ) ; and Adams does not explicitly disclose a touch screen display in electronic communication with the audio control system and supported by the primary housing. However, Pezeshkian discloses a touch screen display in electronic communication with the audio control system and supported by the primary housing ( Pezeshkian , ¶[0 081] “ the user interface unit may comprise one or more user interface components (e.g., knobs, buttons, sliders, touchscreens, etc.) to allow a user to input settings information relating to one or more processing parameters of the APD ”, the system includes touch screen interface allowing user interaction ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of electronic module of the amplifier and speaker system of Adams by adding the audio modulator of Pezeshkian to Improve user interaction with the audio system (Adams, touch screen user interface ). Regarding Claim 2 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams in view of Pezeshkian further discloses ‘ further comprising a linkage assembly connected to the primary housing of the digital audio system and the touch screen display ( Adams, ¶[0 033] “ FIG. 3 illustrates electronic module 34 inserted directly into amplifier and speaker system 35. The electronic module makes mechanical and electrical connection into receptacle or slot 70 of amplifier and speaker system 35 ”, structural features ) . Regarding Claim 4 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Pezeshkian further discloses ‘ further comprising a camera and microphone to capture audio and video of a musician playing a musical instrument ( Pezeshkian , ¶[0 091] “ The I/O interface 580 may couple the computing machine 500 to various input devices including ...cameras, microphones ... such input devices may receive input from a user in any form, including acoustic, speech, visual, or tactile input” , communication between the system and external devices ) . Regarding Claim 7 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Pezeshkian further discloses ‘ further comprising a Bluetooth remote device releasably securable to the musical instrument that can communicate with a Bluetooth controller of the audio control system to affect certain audio functions of the digital audio system ( Pezeshkian, ¶[0 071] “t he APD 400 may comprise an I/O interface 480 having one or more inputs to receive audio signals, control signals comprising settings information and/or other data. Accordingly, the I/O interface 480 may comprise one or more wired or wireless receivers, such as Wi-Fi receivers, Bluetooth receivers ” , the device includes interface circuitry for communication ) . Regarding Claim 8 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Pezeshkian further discloses ‘ wherein the audio control system provides a digital pedal board to be displayed on the touch screen display wherein individual pedals can be adjusted to create a desired sound effect (Pezeshkian, ¶[0 081] “the user interface unit may comprise one or more user interface components (e.g., knobs, buttons, sliders, touchscreens, etc.) to allow a user to input settings information relating to one or more processing parameters of the APD” , supports additional interface limitations ) . Regarding Claim 10 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Pezeshkian further discloses ‘ wherein the audio control system provides a digital amplifier to be displayed on the touch screen display wherein individual audio adjustment knobs can be adjusted to create a desired sound effect (Pezeshkian, ¶[0 081] the user interface unit may comprise one or more user interface components (e.g., knobs, buttons, sliders, touchscreens, etc.) to allow a user to input settings information relating to one or more processing parameters of the APD” , presence of user interface hardware ) . Regarding Claim 17 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ’ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams further discloses ‘ further comprising a first audio output to link the digital audio system to other speakers via an audio cable ( Adams, ¶[0 038] “ FIG. 6 shows electronic module 34 with connector 78 as an audio input or output for connecting to guitar 12 or other musical instruments” , physical connectivity features of the module ) . Regarding Claim 18 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams further discloses ‘ further comprising a second audio output for headphones to be connected via an audio cable ( Adams, ¶[0 038] “ FIG. 6 shows electronic module 34 with connector 78 as an audio input or output for connecting to guitar 12 or other musical instruments” , demonstrates modular connectivity options ) . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Pezeshkian , in further view of Whitt ( US20140204515 ) . Regarding Claim 3 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘The digital audio system of claim 2 as discussed above. Adams further discloses ‘ wherein the linkage assembly allows the touch screen display to be able to be extended away from the primary housing of the digital audio system, (Adams, ¶[0036], Figs 2A-3 , a digital audio system including a display module removably coupled to a primary housing ) . However, Adams does not explicitly disclose ‘tilted relative to the primary housing and rotated relative to the primary housing . Whitt discloses ‘tilted relative ( Whitt, ¶[00 24 ] FIGS. 2-4, in one example the hinge arm member 128 is rotatably coupled to an arm support member ) to the primary housing and rotated relative to the primary housing ( Whitt , ¶[0018] “ a display is rotatably coupled to another substrate containing one or more input devices, such as a keyboard and a trackpad ” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Adams to include the hinge-based adjustable display of Whitt in order to allow adjustment of viewing and orientation, thereby improving usability, visibility and interaction during musical performance. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Pezeshkian , in further view of Mothaffar (US9615160) Regarding Claim 11 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above . Adams discloses emulation of physical characteristics of musical instruments and amplifier systems ¶[0 062] , however, does not explicitly disclose ‘ further comprising retractable audio cords for connection to instruments or microphones. Mothaffar discloses ‘ further comprising retractable audio cords for connection to instruments or microphones (Mothaffar, Fig. 1-3; col. 2 lines 44-48 , in FIG. 3 …coil spring 150 to lift the first end of arm 159 away from contact with the take-up reel 106b thereby allowing the take-up reel 106b to spool the cable and retract the attach earbud 102b into a user desired length or completely into recess 104b in the housing” , extendable and retractable cables into a housing using cable winding take-up reels) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Adams to include the retractable cable system of Mothaffar in order to improve cable management, reduce entanglement, enhance portability and facilitate ease of setup and storage of the audio system. Furthermore, retractable cable systems were known in audio and electronic equipment to allow cables to be extended during use and retracted into housing when not in use, thereby improving usability and organization (US5913487) . Claims 5, 6, 9, and 12 ,14 -16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Pezeshkian , in further view of Aharonson (US Pub 20220180766) , hereinafter Aharonson . Regarding Claim 5 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams teaches an accelerator (Adams ,¶ [0046],”A digital signal processor (DSP) integrated into module 34” ) , a processing hardware architecture capable of performing computational tasks within the system. While Adams does not explicitly disclose a “neural network accelerator,” it teaches processing components that perform system computations. However, Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) does not explicitly teach ‘ wherein the audio control system includes a neural network accelerator to determine strengths and weaknesses of the musician based on audio and/or visual data captured by the digital audio system . Aharonson discloses ‘wherein the audio control system includes a neural network ( Aharonson , ¶[0 729] “ USER PLAYING LEVEL ANALYSIS ”)…based on artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, such as Neural Networks (NN” , analysis of user interaction data ) accelerator to determine strengths and weaknesses of the musician based on audio and/or visual data captured by the digital audio system ( Aharonson , ¶[0 53 3 ] , ”… in the “Estimate Complexity” step 72 may be based on, may use, or may be according to, computationally quantifying performance”, calculating difficulty levels associated with musical exercises based on performance characteristics , to use AI/neural-network techniques to evaluate a musician’s skill level and performance, enabling individualized assessment ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the neural network-based analysis of Aharonson using the processing architecture of Adams, including hardware acceleration techniques, in order to improve computational efficiency and enable real-time or near real-time analysis of user performance data . Regarding Claim 6 , Adams in view of Pezeshkian, in further view of Aharonson teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 5 as discussed above. Aharonson further discloses ‘ wherein the audio control system recommends musical content to the musician to play based upon the weaknesses and strengths of the musician determined by the neural network accelerator ( Aharonson, ¶[ 060 0 ] “the interaction with the user 36 is enhanced by providing feedback that is based on the actual analysis of a practice session…a positive feedback may be provided or notified to the user visually or audibly, ... in case of poor performance” , modifying system interaction and feedback based on user performance evaluation ) . Regarding Claim 9 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) does not explicitly disclose ‘ wherein the audio control system provides instructional videos on the touch screen display from music instructors showing specific hand placement on an instrument for playing a particular song or note. Aharonson discloses ‘ wherein the audio control system provides instructional videos on the touch screen display from music instructors showing specific hand placement on an instrument for playing a particular song or note ( Aharonson , ¶[0 53 4 ], Calculate Difficulty” step 76. The extracted features as part of the “Extract Features” step 75 may include notes or chords difficulty, pertaining to how the player fingers are required to be positioned, transition between notes/chords difficulty “ , instruction presented by technique-related training content matched to a user’s playing difficulty and needs ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Adams to incorporate the difficulty-level determination taught by Aharonson in order to provide adaptive training or feedback based on user’s performance level . R egarding Claim 12 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘ The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) does not explicitly disclose ‘ wherein the audio control system provides a studio option where a musician can record their playing of an instrument to create a video. Aharonson discloses ‘ wherein the audio control system provides a studio option to create a video (Aharonson, ¶[ 0 703 ] ” plurality of I/O devices are generally required for the various operation modes and algorithms executed by the device, such as handset or speaker modes, video capture ” , input/output devices capable of supporting mult iple operational modes, including the capability to capture video data would reasonably be used to record user’s interaction with the instrument ) . However, Aharonson does not explicitly disclose ‘ where a musician can record their playing of an instrument . Although, Aharonson does not explicitly disclose recording a video of the musician’s performance, it would have bee n obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the input/output interface configuration of Aharonson in to the system of Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) and utilize the video capture capability to record the user’s performance, thereby creating a video of the musician playing the instrument . Recording captured video for later playback, review, or sharing is well-known and conventional use of video capture systems. As recognized in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity who would apply known techniques to known systems. Here, applying video recording functionality to a system that captures video in a musical performance context would have been a predictable and obvious use of the existing capability. Regarding Claim 14 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) teaches ‘The digital audio system of claim 1 as discussed above. Adams (in view of Pezeshkian) does not explicitly disclose ‘wherein the digital audio system can be in communication with a cloud connected system with other digital audio systems. Aharonson discloses ‘wherein the digital audio system can be in communication with a cloud connected system with other digital audio systems (Aharonson, ¶[ 050 5 ] “FIG. 15c depicts schematically an arrangement of a MIDI controller wirelessly connected to a client device that is connected for cloud-based service“ , corresponds to a cloud-connected environment ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the network communication capabilities taught by Aharonson into the system of Adams (in view of Pezeshkian in order to enable communication with remote systems across multiple digital audio systems. Regarding Claim 15 , Adams in view of Pezeshkian, in further view of Aharonson teaches ‘The digital audio system of claim 14 as discussed above. Aharonson further discloses ‘wherein a music instructor can be on a first digital audio system and a music student can be on a second digital audio system and the music instructor can use the first digital audio system to teach the music student in real time a music lesson via the first and second digital audio system's communication through the cloud connected system (Aharonson, ( ¶[0 6 7 1 ], “In an “Auto Created Practice Levels” 244 auto-generated practice levels …offline or live on-demand with real teachers, rhythm training, learning of new notes/chords or even Al/AR generated teaching videos FIG. 15c depicts schematically an arrangement of a MIDI controller wirelessly connected to a client device that is connected for cloud-based service“ , adaptive generation of practice levels ). Regarding Claim 16 , Adams in view of Pezeshkian, in further view of Aharonson teaches ‘The digital audio system of claim 14 as discussed above. Aharonson further discloses ‘wherein multiple musicians can be on separate digital audio systems to synchronize each of the musicians' video performance via the cloud connected system (Aharonson, ( ¶[0 67 8 ] “The recording of the sound is performed in a “Record Microphone” module 253 via the selected microphone(s). In case of joint practice (‘jamming’) a “Remove Other (e.g., Online) Players and/or music devices” module 252 is responsible for the input of other musical instruments that play together with the user in the same space and can be heard using the user microphones “, describe capturing sound from multiple instruments ). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Pezeshkian , in further view of Tran ( US 20070262995 ) Regarding claim 13 , Adams (in view of Pezeshkian and Aharonson) teaches the digital audio system of claim 12, as discussed above. Adams, Pezeshkian, and Aharonson disclose a system capable of capturing and processing user musical performance data, including video capture functionality (Aharonson, ¶[070 8 ] , disclose a system capable of capturing ). However, these references do not explicitly disclose ‘ wherein audio control system provides the user an ability to add various effects to the video created . Tran discloses ‘ wherein audio control system provides the user an ability to add various effects to the video created ( Tran , [ 0006 ], Fig. 2 ( “ the process receives a source video (60); generates a plurality of tasks including one or more transitions, one or more effects, and one or more audio edit to be applied to the source video (62) ” , providing the user with the ability to add effects to the video created ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the video effect processing capabilities of Tran into the system of Adams (as modified by Pezeshkian and Aharonson) in order to enhance user customization, improve presentation of recorded performances, and enable creative modification of performance content. Such modification represents the predictable use of known video processing techniques applied to a system already capable of capturing video data. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NICOLE K GILLESPIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)482-4187 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dedei K Hammond can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3819 . 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. /N.K.G/ Examiner, Art Unit 2837 /DEDEI K HAMMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837