DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 08/06/2026.
• Claims 1, 12, and 20 have been amended.
• Claims 6-7 and 14-15 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for benefit of US Patent Application No. 16/213,173, filed 12/07/2018, from which the instant application is a continuation.
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 .
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 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-5, 8-11, and 21-22 are directed to a process, claims 12-13 and 16-19 are directed to a machine, and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
retrieving historic data of at least one test user, a first set of music samples associated with music interest of the test user, and a first set of answers provided by the test user to a set of psychometric questions;
querying to determine whether a first set of music feature values corresponding to a set of music features from the first set of music samples are present;
analyzing the first set of answers and the first set of music samples, wherein:
the first set of answers is analyzed for deriving one or more psychometric features of the test user,
the first set of music samples each comprise date and time markers and are analyzed to extract the first set of music feature values where the first set of music feature values are individually extracted when not present using an algorithm corresponding to a particular music feature and then added, wherein in response to a present music feature value of the first set of music feature values determined to be present, the present music feature value is retrieved and re-extraction of the present music feature value is omitted,
the first set of music feature values are combined into multidimensional vectors on a per music sample basis of the first set of music samples,
the first set of music feature values includes one or more of rhythm, energy, harmonics, temporal components, and spectral component, and
the spectral component is computed and comprises one or more of a fundamental frequency, spectral centroid, a spectral flux, a spectral density, and a spectral roll-off;
aggregating results of the first set of answers into one or more psychometric scores;
mapping each music feature of the set of music features and the historic data to each psychometric feature of the test user based on the first set of music feature values for generating a link therebetween;
assigning a weight to the link between each music feature of the set of music features and each psychometric feature of the test user for generating the one or more predictor models;
generating one or more predictor models based on the historic data of the test user, the first set of music feature values, the multidimensional vectors, the one or more psychometric scores, and the one or more psychometric features of the test user;
predicting one or more personality attributes associated with the test user and determining associated confidence scores for each of the one or more personality attributes;
predicting one or more target user psychometric features based on the historic data and the first set of music feature values;
predicting one or more business outcomes for the target user based on the one or more predictor models, the one or more personality attributes, the one or more target user psychometric features, and a second set of music samples associated with music interest of the target user;
rendering to present the one or more personality attributes, the associated confidence scores, and the one or more business outcomes to the target user;
receiving a feedback from the target user on the one or more business outcomes, wherein the feedback is provided; and
updating the one or more predictor models based on the feedback from the target user.
The above limitations recite the concept of predicting a business outcome based on music and psychometric data and updating the prediction based on feedback. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims pertain to providing one or more business outcomes. The Specification paragraph [0062], further discusses that business outcomes include “job suggestions, purchase suggestions, targeted advertisements, music suggestions, or compatibility match.” Accordingly, the recited limitations claim collection and analysis of data for the purposes of prediction of business outcomes, such as those relating to product purchases and music, as well as to employment and compatibility. Thus, the limitations of claim 1 represent sales activities and behaviors because the limitations recite collection and analysis of data pertaining to users in order to predict business outcomes such as purchase suggestions, targeted advertisements, and music suggestions. These are sales activities because they pertain to an e-commerce provider and they allow a target user to make informed decisions about purchases (Spec: [0062]). The claims additionally recite managing human behavior because the limitations recite collection and analysis of data pertaining to users in order to predict business outcomes such as job suggestions and compatibility matches. These represent managing human behavior because they allow a business organization to allocate work profiles and tasks to employees based on the prediction (Spec: [0003]). Additionally, the claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the analysis, model, and algorithms are observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The claims are similar to the Mental Process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Independent claims 12 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1. As such, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite additional elements, such as a server, an audio processor, a database server, utilizing a machine learning algorithm, rendering, by the server on a user device of the target user, a user interface, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instruction, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 12, and 20 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 12, and 20 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., predicting a business outcome based on music and psychometric data and updating the prediction based on feedback) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 12, and 20 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 12, and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of predicting a business outcome based on music and psychometric data and updating the prediction based on feedback is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 12, and 20 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 12, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 12, and 20, these claims recite additional elements, such as a server, an audio processor, a database server, utilizing a machine learning algorithm, rendering, by the server on a user device of the target user, a user interface, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instruction, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claim 1, 12, and 20 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 12, and 20 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 12, and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of predicting a business outcome based on music and psychometric data and updating the prediction based on feedback is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 12, and 20 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 12, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, and 21-22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, and 21-22 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The dependent claims further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, in that they recite observations, evaluations and judgements. Dependent claims 2-4, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 5 and 21-22 further identify additional elements, such as a database, a regression based predictive learning algorithm, and a neural network based predictive learning algorithm. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, and 21-22 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, and 21-22, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 are ineligible.
Subject Matter Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 include substantially the same limitations as those discussed in the Allowable Subject Matter section of the Office action dated 03/27/2025. Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 are allowable for substantially the same reasons as discussed in the 03/27/2025 Office action. For further details, see the Allowable Subject Matter section of the Office action dated 03/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/06/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application “they are directed to a specific improvement in the way the claimed system operates, not to the mere invocation of generic components as a tool…the system determines whether a feature value is already present and, when it is, retrieves the stored value and forgoes re-extraction entirely” (Remarks page 14). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of predicting business outcomes. This is illustrated in specification paragraph [0024] which discusses that the predicted business outcomes might provide improvements to “marketing strategies” and “resource management.” With respect to Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations provide the benefit of retrieving stored information rather than re-analyzing every sample, the examiner initially notes that retrieving stored information is merely an improvement to the abstract idea and not a technical improvement. Furthermore, any sort of cache technology is merely recited at a high level and thus is insufficient to provide a technical improvement.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a server, an audio processor, a database server, utilizing a machine learning algorithm, rendering, by the server on a user device of the target user, a user interface, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instruction, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of predicting business outcomes in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of predicting business outcomes. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more accurate process for predicting business outcomes, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to music and psychographics while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve prediction of business outcomes, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
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 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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
