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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 26, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on July 26, 2026 for the patent application 18/153,389 originally filed on January 12, 2023. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-18 and 20 are amended. Claims 3 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-18 and 20 are pending. The first office action of September 11, 2025 and the second office action of March 26, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-18 and 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 in accordance with a vocal range estimate of the user:
first musical information to be vocally performed by the user;
first background music (BGM) that corresponds with the first musical information for performing the first musical information together with the first BGM;
receiving an 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 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 musical piece;
the first musical information to second musical information of the musical piece; and
the first BGM to second BGM that corresponds with the second musical information to allow the user to continuously perform the musical piece together with the second BGM;
providing an output comprising the second musical information and the second BGM.”
Per claim 17:
“presenting to the at least one user in accordance with a vocal range estimate:
first musical information to be vocally performed by the user; and
first background music (BGM) that corresponds with the first musical information for performing the first musical information together with the first BGM;
receiving an audio signal relating to vocal sounds produced by the user in accordance with the first musical information of a musical piece, the vocal sounds being characterized by one or more vocal performance characteristics;
determining, based on the first musical information being presented and the received audio signal, a level of correspondence estimate between data descriptive of the 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 musical piece;
the first musical information to second musical information of the musical piece; and
the first BGM to second BGM that corresponds with the second musical information to allow the user to continuously perform the Inst-musical piece together with the second BGM; and
providing an output comprising the second musical information and the second BGM.”
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 microphone 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 microphone 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 microphone 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 microphone 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. [0081], [0093], [0095], [0096] and [0098] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0081] Reference is now made to FIG. 1. A user 50 who wishes to receive a singing teaching lesson, may activate an application of a system 100. The application may be installed on or executed by device 108. Device 108 may be, for example, a tablet computer, smart phone, a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a smartwatch device, and/or the like. User 50 may select a song or another piece to learn and, optionally a difficulty level or player level.”
“[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, 4-16, 18 and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2, 4-16, 18 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 17. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-18 and 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 July 26, 2026 related to claims 1-2, 4-18 and 20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Response to Claim Objections
The Applicant respectfully argues “In the Office Action, claims 5 and 17-20 were objected to because of the informalities presented by the Examiner. In response, Applicant amended the claims wording as proposed by the Examiner. Accordingly, withdrawal of the objections to the claims is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claims 5, 17-18 and 20 are withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “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.
For at least the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully traverses. In accordance with the Examiner's suggestions, Applicant amended Claims 12 and 17 to fully respond to the indefiniteness rejections raised by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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 12 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. Claims 12 and 17 continue to be rejected. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection to claims 12, 17-18 and 20 are withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant submits that claims 1 and 17, as amended, positively require specific structure and/or technological steps that carry out the claimed function in a concrete manner. Namely, the amended claims 1 and 17 define a closed-loop feedback control system for adjusting output based on real-time input signal analysis.
At Step 2A, Prong One of the Mayo/Alice framework, the Examiner characterizes the claims as being directed to providing a singing lesson or performing data analysis. However, as amended, the claims are directed to a specific, computer-implemented process for real-time processing and control of audio-based performance, rather than a mental process or a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant asserts that the claims, at least, require the following:
receiving an audio signal corresponding to vocal sounds produced by a user while performing a musical piece using a microphone device; determining a level of correspondence estimate between the received audio signal and desired vocal sounds corresponding to presented musical information;
applying threshold-based decision logic using both a low threshold and a high threshold tied to vocal performance characteristics; and updating, during continuous performance, the musical information presented to the user while the user continues singing.
Such functions depend on continuous signal acquisition, temporal coordination, and system execution during performance, and cannot be performed by an organized human activity and/or in the human mind. Therefore, they do not constitute methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “providing a singing learning session to a user,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite “a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept of “providing a singing learning session to a user,” which has been done in the analog (i.e. by teachers, coaches and trainers) for decades if not centuries. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “At Step 2A, Prong Two, even assuming that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application. As amended, claims 1 and 17 recite a specific computer-implemented process that controls system operation in real time during execution of a time-based musical performance. The system, at least, facilitates the above-mentioned claim requirements.
Applicant emphasizes that the claims further require updating, during performance, the musical information in response to whether the level of correspondence satisfies the defined threshold conditions, and updating, while the user produces the vocal sounds to perform the musical piece not only the first musical information to second musical information, but also the first background music to second background music that corresponds with the second musical information to allow the user to continuously perform the musical piece together with the second background music.
These limitations improve system functionality, at least, by enabling uninterrupted user performance together with background music.
Accordingly, the claims define a time-synchronized control mechanism for updating background music, based on ongoing user input and anticipated future content. This constitutes a practical application, not a mere presentation of information.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “At Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than any judicial exception. Applicant submits that the claims require a non-conventional arrangement, including at least the above-mentioned claim requirements, combined with threshold-triggered system updates. The claimed system does not merely collect and display information, but determines a level of correspondence estimate between live audio signals and desired vocal characteristics, updates the musical information during continuous user performance, and updates background music "on-the-fly", which is neither conventional nor routine.
Hence, the Examiner has not established that this combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Accordingly, the claims are patent-eligible, and withdrawal of the §101 rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claimed “at least one microphone device,” “at least one output device,” “at least one processor” and “at least one memory,” is absolutely a conventional arrangement found on all forms of devices as provided in the Applicant’s written description of the specification as originally filed at para. [0081] which provides the following:
“[0081] Reference is now made to FIG. 1. A user 50 who wishes to receive a singing teaching lesson, may activate an application of a system 100. The application may be installed on or executed by device 108. Device 108 may be, for example, a tablet computer, smart phone, a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a smartwatch device, and/or the like. User 50 may select a song or another piece to learn and, optionally a difficulty level or player level.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one microphone device,” “at least one output device,” “at least one processor” and “at least one memory,” are reasonably understood to be generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. 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, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights