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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 4, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on March 9, 2026 for the patent application 18/153,389 originally filed on January 12, 2023. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12 and 16-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. The first office action of September 11, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors and the use of multiple conjunctions “and/or.”
Claim 5 is objected to because the limitations contain a confusing use of commas among semi-colons. Either is acceptable, however, using both among the list of limitations is unclear. The Examiner reasonably believes the use of commas among semi-colons is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the list of limitations in claim 5 as follows:
“5. The system of claim 1, wherein the vocal characteristic pertains to at least one of the following: the accuracy of a pitch produced by the user with respect to a presented note of the first musical notation; utterance of certain vowels; utterance of consonants; utterance of syllables; utterance of words; verbal utterance; non-verbal utterance; breathing characteristics[[,]]; phrasing-related characteristics; diction-related characteristics; singing loudness; or any combination of the aforesaid.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the following: “… or exceeds high threshold value…” Specifically, the limitation is lacking an article (i.e. “a”). The Examiner reasonably believes the missing article is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows: “… or exceeds a high threshold value…” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 18-20 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 17.
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.
Claims 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “second musical information.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the second musical information”); or (2) is intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “a determined level of correspondence estimate” and “one or more vocal performance characteristics.” The limitations are originally introduced in claim 17. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the determined level of correspondence estimate” and “the one or more vocal performance characteristics”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitations of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 17.
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 1-20 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”) and claim 17 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), 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.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “providing a singing learning session to a user,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“presenting…the user with first musical information in accordance with a vocal range estimate;
receiving…a first audio signal relating to vocal sounds produced by the user in accordance with the presented-first musical information of a first musical piece, the vocal sounds being characterized by one or more vocal performance characteristics;
determining a level of correspondence estimate between data descriptive of the first audio signal, and data descriptive of desired vocal sounds in correspondence with the first musical information;
determining, based on the level of correspondence estimate, whether the first musical information presented to the user is to be updated or not; and
in the event the level of correspondence estimate drops below a low threshold value for the one or more vocal performance characteristics, or exceeds a high threshold value for the one or more vocal performance characteristics:
updating, while the user produces the vocal sounds to perform the first musical piece, the first musical information to second musical information of the first musical piece to allow the user to continuously perform the first musical piece; and
providing…an output comprising the second musical information.”
Per claim 17:
“presenting… the user with first musical information in accordance with a vocal range estimate;
Receiving… a first audio signal relating to vocal sounds produced by the user in accordance with the first musical information of a first musical piece, the vocal sounds being characterized by one or more vocal performance characteristics;
determining a level of correspondence estimate between data descriptive of the first audio signal, and data descriptive of desired vocal sounds in correspondence with the first musical information;
determining, based on the level of correspondence estimate, whether the first musical information presented to the user is to be updated or not; and
in the event a level of correspondence estimate drops below a low threshold value for the one or more vocal performance characteristics, or exceeds high threshold value for one or more vocal performance characteristics:
updating, while the user produces the vocal sounds to perform the first musical piece, the first musical information to second musical information of the first musical piece to allow the user to continuously perform the first musical piece; and
providing…an output comprising the second musical information.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “at least one input device,” “at least one output device,” “at least one processor” and “at least one memory,” 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 “providing a singing learning session to a user,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “at least one input device,” “at least one output device,” “at least one processor” and “at least one memory,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one input device” and “at least one output device,” are described in para. [0099] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0099] Input/output devices 2140 and/or 2240 may include a display device, one or more microphones, one or more speakers, inertial sensors, non-inertial sensors, sensors configured to sense physiological parameter characteristics (e.g., blood pressure, pulse, sweat rate, body temperature, user motion, movement), microphones, wearable sensors, non-wearable sensors, image or imaging sensors, and/or a communication module for communicating, for example, with a server comprising a database storing music pieces and arrangements, and/or the like.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one input device” and “at least one output device,” merely provides a laundry list of known components that are considered ubiquitous, standard off-the-shelf equipment that is commercially available today.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” are reasonably interpreted as elements of a computer to carry out the abstract idea. These elements as described in paras. [0093], [0095], [0096] and [0098] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0093] Computing device 2100 may comprise one or more processors 2110 and one or more memories 2120. Any of processors 2110 may be a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a microprocessor, an electronic circuit, an Integrated Circuit (IC) or the like. Processors 2110 may be utilized to perform computations required by system 2000 and/or any of its subcomponents.”
“[0095] Similarly, server 2200 may include a processor 2210, a memory 2220. Executing of computer-executable instructions stored in memory 2220 by processor 2210 may result in a server-side singing teaching engine 2230. Server 2200 may further include input/output devices 2240.”
“[0096] The term “processor”, as used herein, may additionally or alternatively refer to a controller. Processor 2110 and/or processor 2210 may be implemented by various types of processor devices and/or processor architectures including, for example, embedded processors, communication processors, graphics processing unit (GPU)-accelerated computing, soft-core processors and/or general purpose processors.”
“[0098] Memory 2120 and/or memory 2220 may be implemented by various types of memories, including transactional memory and/or long-term storage memory facilities and may function as file storage, document storage, program storage, or as a working memory. The latter may for example be in the form of a static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), read-only memory (ROM), cache and/or flash memory. As working memory, Memory 2120 and/or memory 2220 may, for example, include, e.g., temporally-based and/or non-temporally based instructions. As long-term memory, Memory 2120 and/or memory 2220 may for example include a volatile or non-volatile computer storage medium, a hard disk drive, a solid state drive, a magnetic storage medium, a flash memory and/or other storage facility. A hardware memory facility may for example store a fixed information set (e.g., software code) including, but not limited to, a file, program, application, source code, object code, data, and/or the like.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 17. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on March 9, 2026 related to claims 1-20are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Response to Claim Objections
The Applicant respectfully argues “In the Office Action, claims 1-20 were objected to because of informalities presented by the Examiner. In response, Applicant amended claims wording as proposed by the Examiner. Accordingly, withdrawal of all objections to claims is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 5 and 17 continue to be objected. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claims 5 and 17-20 are not withdrawn.
Drawings
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action states that the Figs. 1 and 4-7 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1). In addition, the Office Action states with respect to Figs. 1 and 5-7 that the use of shading in an otherwise non-perspective view prevents the figures from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(m). In response, Applicant submits herewith amended replacement drawing sheets 1 and 4-7.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
At least for the reasons set forth herein below, Applicant respectfully traverses. In accordance with the Examiner's suggestions, Applicant amended Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19, to fully respond to any indefiniteness rejections raised by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Moreover, with these amendments, Applicant ensures proper antecedence throughout the presented Claims and avoids vague and/or contradicting references across all claim language and wording.
Hence, withdrawal of the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 12 and 17 continue to be rejected. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection to claims 12 and 17-20 are not withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that at least the subject-matter of "providing, by the at least one output device, an output comprising the second musical information" are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element, when considered both individually and as a whole, do amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and amount to an inventive concept that is sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
The claim as a whole improves the technology related to providing a singing teaching and/or vocal training lesson by virtue of presenting the user with output comprising the second musical information, wherein first musical piece is updated to the second musical information of the first musical piece to allow the user to continuously perform the first musical piece.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and thus, is not directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, independent claims 1 and 17 as well as the dependent claims, which depend therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant is not providing any advancement in technology, but instead using technology to advance the abstract idea of “providing a singing learning session to a user.” Specifically, the Applicant is merely using a computer combined and other commonly available devices as a tool to carry out the abstract idea of “providing a singing learning session to a user” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Second, the Applicant’s described “improvement in technology” is merely describing what vocal coaches and music teachers do in the analog. Further, the Applicant is presenting a mankind burden and automating known tasks to alleviate the burden. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715