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’ preliminary amendment filed April 23, 2023 and February 1, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 23, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 14-16, 18 and 20 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claim 1 line 5: “the at least one user”
Claims 1 and 16 lines 12 and 10, respectively: “the coinciding note played”
Claims 3 and 18 line 3: “the user-generated audio signal”
Claim 7 line 3: “the chronological order”
Claim 8 line 2: “the users right hand”
Claims 14 and 15 line 2: “the time interval”
Claim 16 lines 3-4: “the musical notation”
Claim 20 line 2: “the processing”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 16 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2 and 17 include limitations pertaining to “the musical notation”. These limitations should be changed to state “the musical notations” for proper antecedent basis.
Claims 1 and 16 include the limitation “a longer duration than the coinciding note played through the user”. This limitation should be changed to state “a longer duration than the coinciding note played by the user” for better consistency with terminology in the art.
Claim 8 further includes the limitation “pertains to notes being and/played by the user’s left hand”. This limitation should be changed to state “pertains to notes being and/or to be played by the user’s left hand”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 and 16 include the limitation “the musical notation to be executed through the user”. However it is unclear how a musical notation can be executed through a user since musical notation is a written representation of musical notes. It is unclear whether applicants intend the limitation to refer to a user writing the musical notation, or performing the musical notation via an instrument or singing. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “the musical notation to be played by the user”.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 13, 16-18 and 20 include limitations pertaining to “the user’. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the user”, as the claims 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 as a single user. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “the at least one user”.
Claim 16 includes the limitation “for indicating musical notations for at least one user to execute comprising”. However it is unclear how a musical notation can be executed by a user since musical notation is a written representation of musical notes. It is unclear whether applicants intend the limitation to refer to a user writing the musical notation, or performing the musical notation via an instrument or singing. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “for indicating musical notations for at least one user to play comprising”.
Claim 20 includes limitations pertaining to “the user-generated audio data”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the user-generated audio data”. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the user-generated audio signal, or introduce a new limitation to the claims. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “the user-generated audio signal”.
Claims 4-6, 8-11, 14, 15 and 19 depend from at least claims 1 or 16 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claims 1 or 16.
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, and selecting a section of the musical notation. 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. 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 memory, a processor and a presentation device which are described at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere components and instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and known processing algorithm to perform the process. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the presentation device which presents a musical notation to a user, is considered a generic computer component 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.
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 and 16-20 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, comprising: a memory for storing data and executable instructions, and a processor that is configured to execute the execution instructions to result in the following, and a method for indicating musical notations for a user to play comprising presenting (generating an image) the user with musical notations (score segment) on a presentation device (corresponding interface) (column 1 lines 36-40), the musical notation to be played 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 a section of the musical notation, wherein the section contains a musical note of digital music score coinciding (matching) with the received audio signal (column 5 lines 8-19) and which is descriptive of a temporal interval having a longer duration than the coinciding note played through the user, as can be seen from Fig. 3(a).
Claims 2 and 17: Zhang et al. a system and method as stated above, where the user is provided with 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 that will coincide with the user-generated audio signal the user will subsequently generate 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 user's right hand, and a second indicator pertains to notes to be played by the user's left hand, 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 said predicting is based on identifying, based on the processing of the user-generated audio data, a current section of the musical notations which corresponds to the user-generated audio data currently generated (column 5 lines 8-19).
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.
Claim 7 is 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. 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]).
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. 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 a 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. 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. 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. 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).
Conclusion
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 April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights