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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A method is one of the 4 statutory classes of invention, but the subject matter cited is judicially excepted. The method recites essentially control of the brain for babies and kids up to 7 years old to cause slow neural firing frequency of 4 to 7 cycles per second in the synchronized cortex and limbic part of a typical baby/child's brain. Neural firing is the process by which neurons communicate with each other through electrical impulses and neurotransmitters. No patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. See Manual for Patent Examiner Procedure 2106 III. Control of neural firing activity in a specific part of the human brain encompasses the human organism as defined by The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33(a).
Also providing a label to the queried musical notes containing (or not) the targeted ultimate pitch through letters and words, is considered to be directed to the abstract idea of learning to recognize musical notes, which is the abstract idea of organizing a human activity or a mental process, which are also excepted subject matter. Herein, the examiner conceives that a first person or an audiovisual system presents information including labels on a timed basis to a young human student and the student is to learn. Such a method is to the abstract idea of teaching in a human lead process or to a learning process where the student is to learn what is being presented. In either case the claimed method is to an abstract idea or to a learning process, which are both to judicial exceptions. Where claimed subject matter involves a judicial exception the next test is whether the claimed subject matter is to substantially more than the judicial exception. In either case the method is not to substantially more than the judicially excepted subject matter itself. This substantially regards whether a practical application of the excepted subject matter is claimed and disclosed by the applicant. The applicant’s specification presents only general information rather than a practical example of the method.
As such the subject matter of claim 1 is considered ineligible for a patent under 101. Claims 2-6 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is not clear how one can cause a slow neural firing frequency of 4 to 7 seconds in another person’s brain, because is not clear how one directly controls the brain of another human being. As well as the examiner can tell the applicant does not provide any mechanism for directly accessing the brain of the baby or child. It is also not clear how one enables the person to consciously input labeled sound images. It is not clear how to enable visualize the sound for apt immersion of the ultimate pitch present within the visualized sound.
In claim 5 the applicant suggests the targeted ultimate pitch is achieved by means of on-screen information display. The applicant does teach the means in the specification by which an information display may be operated. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to make and use the claimed invention based on the attached disclosure.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 it is not clear what is meant for the subject to consciously input the labelled sound images, as to whether this refers to the image of labels or to sounds. It is not clear what it means to enable visualize the sound for apt immersion of the ultimate pitch present within the visualized sound. It is not clear what is meant by attaining an ultimate/absolute pitch. This could mean producing the pitch or perhaps recognizing the pitch, or attaining absolute pitch recognition of all pitches. It is not clear what is meant by enabling the subject to consciously input the labelled sound images for a period of 7 to 200 milliseconds. This could mean looking at labels or listening to the sound. In either case it seems that the young student has a very short time period to sense the input. Once the young student performs the inputting, it is not clear if they are to do anything in response to the input.
Regarding claim 2, it is not clear what it means the sound images to be accomplished on a simultaneous basis through usage of the letter of the note/chord, and the treble clef staff image of the note/chord, keyboard, containing (or not) the targeted ultimate pitch. It is not clear in what sense the sound image is to be accomplished, or how one is to use the claimed means.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear what is meant by the said treble clef is isolated specifically for isolating the note/chord in music towards attainment of the targeted absolute pitch. It is not clear what is isolated from what.
Regarding claim 4, it is not clear what is meant by each piece of music filtered through a musical wheel or what is meant by a music wheel, since this has not been defined in the claim tree.
Regarding claim 5, is it not clear what is meant by apt filtration of musical sounds through a cue of music.
Claim 6 is considered indefinite because it refers to a non-specific referencing process.
Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establis3hing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aruffo (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0017351).
Regarding claim 1, Aruffo teaches an absolute pitch recognition method for babies and kids up to 7 years of age (can be used with babies and kids up to 7 years old) comprising, providing a label to the queried musical notes containing (or not) the targeted ultimate pitch through letters and words (a query is provided as well as a reinforcing sound and visual indicia); and
enabling the subject to consciously input the labelled sound images to enable visualize the sound for apt immersion of the ultimate pitch present within the visualized sound (ear training of pitch recognition is taught to determine whether the target pitch is present in the query sound, abstract).
(2) Aruffo does not teach said method comprising: slow neural firing frequency of 4 to 7 cycles per second in the synchronized cortex and limbic part of a typical baby/child's brain towards attaining an ultimate/absolute pitch. Aruffo does not teach inputting for a period of 7 to 200 milliseconds.
(3) The method by Aruffo will be indirectly accessing the baby/child’s brain at some not determined and perhaps not controllable neural firing frequency. The student is presented the query sound and reinforcement sound for some period of time. Because the neural firing is performed at an unknown rate that is not easily controllable, the method by Aruffo is considered an obvious variant to the claimed method. It would be obvious to control the inputting rate according to the ability of the student.
(4) The method by Aruffo may be modified to comprise slow neural firing frequency of 4 to 7 cycles per second in the synchronized cortex and limbic part of a typical baby/child's brain towards attaining an ultimate/absolute pitch and enabling inputting of for a period of 7 to 200 milliseconds.
Regarding claim 2, Aruffo teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the sound images to be accomplished on a simultaneous basis through usage of the letter of the note/chord, and the treble clef staff image of the note/chord, keyboard, containing (or not) the targeted ultimate pitch (paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 5, Aruffo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the targeted ultimate pitch is achieved by means of on-screen information display available to learner kids and children for apt filtration of musical sounds through a cue of music (paragraph 45).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aruffo and Katsuta (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0247305.
(1) Regarding claim 3, Aruffo teaches the method of claim 1.
(2) Aruffo does not teach wherein the said treble clef is isolated specifically for isolating the note/chord in music towards attainment of the targeted absolute pitch.
(3) Katsuta teaches wherein the said treble clef is isolated specifically for isolating the note/chord in music (by playing pointer 5). A pointer is provided for isolating a position on the treble clef.
(4) The method by Aruffo may be modified in view of Katsuta wherein a treble clef part is isolated specifically for isolating the note/chord in music towards attainment of the targeted absolute pitch.
(5) Considering the objective evidence, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the combination as in (4) above motivated a specific note or chord section can be indicated.
Not Rejected on the Patentable Merits
Claims 4 and 6 are not rejected on the merits and are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the rejections would be overcome if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The subject matter of the underlying limitations would have to be found to be patent eligible under 101 for the claims to be allowable.
Claim 4 is considered not rejected on the patentable merits for the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of associating the targeted ultimate pitch with a usage log for each piece of music filtered through a musical wheel by learner kids and children.
This is not recited in Aruffo and the examiner did not discover the further limitation of claim 4 in the relevant prior art. Claim 4 is considered non-obvious with respect to the closest related art.
Claim 6 is considered not rejected on the patentable merits for dependence on dependent claim 4 and for the citation of further distinguishing subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner points to the references cited in the form 892. The examiner advises the applicant to review these references, because the examiner may apply the references in future actions, if necessitated by amendment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT W HORN whose telephone number is (571)272-8591. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 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.
/ROBERT W HORN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
January 13, 2025