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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed July 6, 2026. Claims 1-28 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Objections to claims 1-3, 7, 8 and 16-18 have been withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 15, 20 and 23 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claims 14 and 15 line 1: “the temporal interval (for a musical piece to be played at a first tempo)”
Claims 14 and 15 line 3: “the temporal interval (for a musical piece to be played at a second tempo)”
Claim 20 line 10: “the subsequent section”
Claim 23 lines 1-2: “the location (of the next note)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim includes limitations pertaining to “the user-generated audio data”. These limitations should be changed to state “the user audio data” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-15, 22, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 includes the limitation “wherein the temporal interval is adapted based on characteristics of audio data generated by the user”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the temporal interval to be adapted based on data generated by the user. Applicants’ specification describes a temporal interval to correspond to a duration of a section (page 15 paragraph [0083]), and an indicator to display a tracking of a current note played by a user within a section (page 4 paragraph [0021]). An indicator, not the temporal interval, is described to be adapted based on characteristics of audio data generated by a user (page 6 paragraph [0038]). Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 13 includes the limitation “wherein the temporal interval is adapted based on one or more characteristics of a musical piece”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the temporal interval to be adapted, e.g., changed, based on a musical piece. Applicants’ specification is silent as to such a feature. Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 14 and 15 include the limitation “wherein the temporal interval may be longer/shorter for a musical piece that is to be played at a first, greater speed or tempo, than the temporal interval for a musical piece to be played at a second, comparatively slower tempo”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the temporal interval to change based on a tempo of the musical piece. Applicants’ specification describes a temporal interval to correspond to a duration of a section (page 15 paragraph [0083]), and an indicator to display a tracking of a current note played by a user within a section (page 4 paragraph [0021]). A time interval represented by the indicator, not the temporal interval, is described to be changed based on a tempo of the musical piece (page 7 paragraph [0039]). Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 22 includes the limitation “the output comprises a cursor having a center location”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe use of a cursor. Applicants’ specification teaches away from using a cursor, and instead implements a cloud indicator for denoting a progression within a section (pages 8-9 paragraph [0049]), where the cloud has a center location (page 11 paragraph [0069]). Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 23 includes the limitation “wherein the center location of the cursor corresponds to the location of the next note”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe use of a cursor. Applicants’ specification teaches away from using a cursor, and instead implements a cloud indicator for denoting a progression within a section (pages 8-9 paragraph [0049]). The cloud is further described to have a center location, but is used to position the cloud based on various inputs, and does not correspond to a next note (page 11 paragraph [0069]). Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 27 includes the limitation “wherein the temporal interval is a constant duration, a dynamic duration, or an adaptive duration”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the temporal interval to have a constant duration, a dynamic duration, or an adaptive duration. Applicants’ specification describes a temporal interval to correspond to a duration of a section (page 15 paragraph [0083]), and an indicator to display a tracking of a current note played by a user within a section (page 4 paragraph [0021]). The indicator, not the temporal interval, is described to have either a constant duration, a dynamic duration, or an adaptive duration (page 6 paragraph [0038]). Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 20-28 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 20, 21, 25 and 28 include limitations pertaining to “the user”. However the claim(s) previously describe at least one user. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the at least one user, or further limit the at least one user to a single user. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “the at least one user”.
Claim 20 is directed to the “method of claim 16, wherein” and further includes limitations pertaining to “said predicting”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “said predicting” as this step was introduced in claim 18. It is unclear whether applicants intend claim 20 to depend from claim 18, or introduce a new step into the claim. For examining purposes, this claim is interpreted as being directed to the “method of claim 18 wherein”
Claim 23 is directed to the “system of claim 21, wherein” and further includes limitations pertaining to “the center location” of the cursor. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the center location” as this element was introduced in claim 22. It is unclear whether applicants intend claim 23 to depend from claim 22, or introduce a new element into the claim. For examining purposes, this claim is interpreted as being directed to the “system of claim 22 wherein”.
Claims 2-11, 14, 15, 22, 24, 26 and 27 depend from at least claims 1 or 21 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claims 1 or 21.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps to present musical notation, receive an audio signal, analyze the received audio signal, selecting a section of the musical notations, and presenting an output. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed limitations describe a process, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, e.g. receiving and analyzing audio signals, and selecting a section of musical notations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only additional elements described in the claims are a processor, memory and a presentation device which are described at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere components to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are not described so as to require any unique components in order to achieve the claimed invention. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor for executing stored instructions, the memory for storing the instructions, and the presentation device which presents musical notations to a user, are considered generic computer components without requiring any additional specific elements to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The dependent claims 2-15 and 17-28 only further define the abstract idea without significant more, e.g. predicting a subsequent section of musical notations to be output, present first and second indicators according to notes played by a left or right hand according to positional alignment, adapting a temporal interval, determining a probability of a next note from a plurality of candidate notes are not described to require any additional unique components or steps. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 16-20, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 12,205,564 B2).
Claims 1 and 16: Zhang et al. discloses a system configured to provide a music learning session to a user, comprising: a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, and a method for indicating musical notations to be performed by a user comprising presenting/displaying (generating an image) musical notations (score segment) on a presentation device (corresponding interface) (column 1 lines 36-40) to be performed by the user (column 6 lines 20-24). Receiving an audio signal (playing progress of target music video) relating to an instrument played by the user, analyzing the received audio signal to obtain an analysis output, and selecting based on the analysis, a section of the musical notations presented to the user, wherein the section is associated with/descriptive of a musical note of digital music score coinciding (matching) with the received audio signal (column 5 lines 8-19) and the section has a temporal interval having a longer duration than a duration of the coinciding musical being performed, as can be seen from Fig. 3(a). The section is further shown to comprise a past musical notation (notes already performed) presented for performance by the user and a future musical notation to be performed by the user, where in addition to the musical notations presented to the user, an output (highlighted notes) is further presented/displayed indicative of the section of the musical notations.
Claims 2 and 17: Zhang et al. a system and method as stated above, where the output displays to the user one or more indicators about the selected section of the musical notation, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Claims 3 and 18: Zhang et al. a system and method as stated above, where a subsequent section of the musical notations expected to correspond to a subsequent audio signal generated by the user is predicted based on the analysis output (column 5 lines 15-19).
Claims 4 and 19: Zhang et al. a system and method as stated above, where user-generated audio data (data structure) corresponding to current playing progress is generated based on the received audio signal, and processed for matching with digital music score data structure (column 5 lines 8-19).
Claim 5: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where a first indicator highlighting a selected first section (measure) of longer duration is presented, and a second indicator highlighting a selected second section (single note(s) in time) of shorter duration than the first indicator is presented, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Claim 6: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where a first indicator highlighting a certain staff is presented, and a second indicator highlighting a section (single note in time) that is part of the staff highlighted by the first indicator is presented, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Claim 8: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where a first indicator pertains to notes to be played by a right hand of the user, and a second indicator pertains to notes to be played by a left hand of the user, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Claim 9: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where a first indicator (highlighted note in time) on a treble clef and a second indicator (highlighted note in time) on a bass clef are presented in positional alignment relative to each other with respect to musical notations to be played, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Claim 10: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where an indicator is presented to highlight a selected section of musical notation and changes with time (column 6 lines 30-38). A duration represented by the indicator can be changed according to an adjustment operation from a user (column 6 lines 48-63). Therefore when the duration is not changed by the user, the indicator represents a constant duration.
Claim 11: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where an indicator is presented to highlight a selected section of musical notation and changes with time (column 6 lines 30-38). A duration represented by the indicator is an adaptive duration according to an adjustment operation from a user (column 6 lines 48-63).
Claim 20: Zhang et al. a method as stated above, where user audio data is generated for presenting to the user based on the received audio signal (column 13 lines 41-42, 54-60), and said predicting is based on identifying, based on the processing of the user audio data, a current section of the musical notations which corresponds to the user audio data currently generated (column 5 lines 8-19).
Claim 26: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where the output is marked with time units so as to match the received audio signal and musical notation quickly (column 9 lines 4-16), and therefore is provided to minimize jumps in the presentation of the output.
Claim 27: Zhang et al. a system as stated above, where the temporal interval would be either a constant duration or a changing duration such as a dynamic duration, or an adaptive duration, as is recognized in the art.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 12,205,564 B2) in view of Ding et al. (US 2008/0302233 A1).
Claim 7: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose an indicator of a musical notation section to be displayed containing one or more notes played by the user a second time differently to correct for errors than a musical notation section displayed to the user for playing in the chronological order.
However Ding et al. teaches a system configured to provide a music learning session, where an indicator (red note) of a musical notation section (sheet music) is displayed containing one or more notes played by the user a second time differently to correct for errors than a musical notation section displayed to the user for playing in the chronological order (page 9 paragraph [0123]).
Given the teachings of Ding et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing an indicator of a musical notation section to be displayed containing one or more notes played by the user a second time differently to correct for errors than a musical notation section displayed to the user for playing in the chronological order. Doing so would allow “the performance data [to] be uploaded … so the uploaded data can be replayed to be observed at a later time” as taught in Ding et al. (page 3 paragraph [0046]) which can later be corrected (page 6 paragraph [0085]).
Claim 28: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the system to selectively present or not present the output to the user.
However Ding et al. teaches a system configured to provide a music learning session, where the system selectively presents or does not present output to the user based on a selected practice mode (page 3 paragraph [0047]).
Given the teachings of Ding et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing the system to selectively present or not present the output to the user. Doing so would :give the user a chance to quickly try out some non-standard approach or repeatedly practice some passages” as taught in Ding et al. (page 3 paragraph [0047]).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 12,205,564 B2) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 7,767,898 B2).
Claim 12: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the duration represented by the indicator to be adapted based on characteristics of audio data generated by the user.
However Nakayama et al. teaches a system configured to provide a music learning session, where a duration (length) represented by an indicator (musical note displayed) is adapted based on a characteristic (tempo) of an audio data displayed to the user for playing (column 2 lines 42-47).
Given the teachings of Nakayama et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing the duration represented by the indicator to be adapted based on characteristics of audio data generated by the user. Doing so would provide musical notation presented to the user to be “displayed on the [presentation device] equivalently to a real piano roll, and that the display may be carried out without an unpleasant sensation” as taught in Nakayama et al. (column 2 lines 48-51).
Claim 13: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the duration represented by the indicator to be adapted based on one or more characteristics of a musical piece displayed to the user for playing thereby.
However Nakayama et al. teaches a system configured to provide a music learning session, where a duration (length) represented by an indicator (musical note displayed) is adapted based on a characteristic (tempo) of a musical piece displayed to the user for playing thereby (column 2 lines 42-47).
Given the teachings of Nakayama et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing the duration represented by the indicator to be adapted based on one or more characteristics of a musical piece displayed to the user for playing thereby. Doing so would provide musical notation presented to the user to be “displayed on the [presentation device] equivalently to a real piano roll, and that the display may be carried out without an unpleasant sensation” as taught in Nakayama et al. (column 2 lines 48-51).
Claim 14: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose a time interval of an indicator to be longer for a musical piece that is to be played at a first, greater speed or tempo, than the time interval of an indicator displayed for a musical piece to be played at a second, comparatively slower tempo.
However Nakayama et al. teaches a system configured to provide a music learning session, where a time interval of an indicator (musical note displayed) is different based on a tempo of a musical piece displayed (column 2 lines 42-47).
Given the teachings of Nakayama et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing a time interval of an indicator to be longer for a musical piece that is to be played at a first, greater speed or tempo, than the time interval of an indicator displayed for a musical piece to be played at a second, comparatively slower tempo. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Doing so would provide musical notation presented to the user to be “displayed on the [presentation device] equivalently to a real piano roll, and that the display may be carried out without an unpleasant sensation” as taught in Nakayama et al. (column 2 lines 48-51).
Claim 15: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose a time interval of an indicator to be shorter for a musical piece that is to be played at a first, greater speed or tempo, than the time interval of an indicator displayed for a musical piece to be played at a second, comparatively slower tempo.
However Nakayama et al. teaches a system configured to provide a music learning session, where a time interval of an indicator (piano roll graphic) is shorter for a musical piece that is to be played at a first, greater speed or tempo, than the time interval of an indicator displayed for a musical piece to be played at a second, comparatively slower tempo (column 13 lines 63-66).
Given the teachings of Nakayama et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing a time interval of an indicator to be shorter for a musical piece that is to be played at a first, greater speed or tempo, than the time interval of an indicator displayed for a musical piece to be played at a second, comparatively slower tempo. Doing so would provide an “effect [which] can be easy to grasp the relationship between the graphic displayed and the musical note” as taught in Nakayama et al. (column 2 line 67 through column 3 line 2).
Claims 21, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 12,205,564 B2) in view of Serletic, II et al. (US 9,177,540 B2).
Claim 21: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the analyzing of the received audio signal to comprise determining a probability of a next note to be played by the user.
However Serletic, II et al. teaches a system where a received audio signal (musical composition) is analyzed to determine a probability of a next (subsequent) note to be played (column 67 lines 58-65).
Given the teachings of Serletic, II et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing the analyzing of the received audio signal to comprise determining a probability of a next note to be played by the user. Doing so would make it “possible to determine the major or minor modes of any plurality of probable keys to achieve improvement in key signature accuracy” as taught in Serletic, II et al. (column 28 lines 14-18).
Claim 22: Zhang et al. modified by Serletic, II et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the output comprises a cursor positioned above and corresponding to playback bar (1216) having a center location represented by the playback bar, as shown in FIGS. 12A-C of Serletic, II et al.
Claim 24: Zhang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the analyzing of the received audio signal to comprise determining a plurality of candidate positions for presenting the output with respect to the musical notations.
However Serletic, II et al. teaches a system where a received audio signal (musical composition) is analyzed to comprise determining a plurality of candidate positions (alternative subsequent notes) for presenting the output with respect to the musical notations (column 67 lines 58-65).
Given the teachings of Serletic, II et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. with providing the analyzing of the received audio signal to comprise determining a plurality of candidate positions for presenting the output with respect to the musical notations. Doing so would make it “possible to determine the major or minor modes of any plurality of probable keys to achieve improvement in key signature accuracy” as taught in Serletic, II et al. (column 28 lines 14-18).
Claim 25: Zhang et al. modified by Serletic, II et al. discloses a system as stated above, where one of the plurality of candidate positions is selected based on a highest probability of a next note to be played, as shown in Serletic, II et al. (column 67 lines 58-65).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 12,205,564 B2) modified by Serletic, II et al. (US 9,177,540 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Bales et al. (US 2014/0260898 A1).
Claim 23: Zhang et al. modified by Serletic, II et al. discloses a system where the center location of cursor is represented by the playback bar, as stated above. The center location of the cursor is shown in FIG. 12A of Serletic, II et al. to correspond to a location of a horizontal bar (1214) representing a note (column 25 lines 4-6). These reference fail to disclose the center location of the cursor to correspond to a location of a next note.
However Bales et al. teaches a system to provide a music learning session to a user, where a cursor (arrow) is shown in FIG. 28 to correspond to a location of a next note to be played (page 5 paragraph [0089]).
Given the teachings of Bales et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Zhang et al. as modified by Serletic, II et al. with providing the center location of the cursor to correspond to a location of a next note. Doing so would allow new notes to be indicated “after a player has played all target notes from a previous beat, and a song progresses at the pace of a player” as taught in Bales et al. (page 5 paragraph [0090]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 9 of the response that “the claims are not directed to a mental process because they require processing a user-generated audio signal to identify a coinciding note and selecting a section of musical notation based on a temporal interval exceeding the duration of that note, which requires signal processing and temporal analysis beyond practical human capability”. However when a person listens to and evaluates music performed by a musician with respect to printed musical notation, said person mentally processes said performed music to identify a coinciding note within a phrase or measure of the musical notation, where said phrase or measure exceeds a duration of said note. This is a common procedure used by teachers to determine a skill level of a student musician relative to his/her peers, for example. Therefore this procedure is within practical human mental capability.
Applicants further state that “the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application by improving computer-based music learning systems through synchronization of audio input generated by the user with selected notation segments”. However the claimed limitations do not describe improvements to computer-based systems, as shown above with respect to Zhang et al. (US 12,205,564 B2). Besides the steps of receiving an audio signal, analyzing the audio signal and selecting a section of musical notations, the claims only describe generic computer components at a high-level of generality. Therefore the additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application since it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the process. The claims then are directed to an abstract idea.
On page 10, applicants state that “Zhang is not directed to assisting a user in learning to play an instrument… [and] Zhang is at least silent with respect to the following claimed subject matter of receiving audio signals generated due to the playing of an instrument played and/or vocal output produced by a user”. However applicants’ claim 1 does not require the system to assist a user in learning to play an instrument, but is directed to a “system configured to provide a music learning session to at least one user”. It should be noted that the claims do not further define an intended meaning of “music learning session”. According to its broadest reasonable interpretation then, a system which outputs a notational presentation of a target music piece to help a musician learn said target music piece properly describes applicants’ claim. It should further be noted that applicants’ claims do not require audio signals to be received that are generated due to the playing of an instrument, or vocal output. Instead an audio signal is received “relating to an instrument played and/or vocal output generated by the user” (emphasis added). Since the musical notation output presented to a user disclosed in Zhang et al. relates to an instrument played by a user, Zhang et al. properly anticipates applicants’ limitations as required by the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 September 30, 2026
