DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1–22 in application number 18476382.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim 18 was previously canceled and claim 21 is currently canceled.
Claim 22 is newly added.
Claims 1–17, 19–20, and 22 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered with the RCE filed 7/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1–17, 19–20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1–17, 19–20, and 22. In the present application, claims 1–17 and 22 are directed to a method (i.e., process); and claims 19–20 are directed to a product (i.e., apparatus and non-transitory medium) that performs the method of claim 1. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A computer-implemented method in an apparatus, the method comprising
receiving a set of learning targets based on a user selection;
ingesting, as input data, electronic data of a user performance of at least one musical piece or at least one learning target of the set of learning targets;
extracting acoustic features comprising a frequency quality and/or a timing quality of any of the input data;
determining a user skill level by comparing the acoustic features of the input data with the acoustic features of the at least one musical piece or the at least one learning target;
determining a difficulty level for each learning target of the set of learning targets by the respective acoustic features of each learning target;
determining an effort parameter for each learning target of the set of learning targets based on the user skill level and/or the difficulty level of each learning target;
arranging the set of learning targets based on the effort parameters; and
providing a personalized curriculum based on the arranged set of learning targets on a display of the apparatus,
wherein the apparatus is configured to analyze a user performance of at least one learning target of the personalized curriculum and update at least one of: the user skill level and difficulty level for the performed learning target; and
wherein the apparatus is further configured to rearrange the displayed personalized curriculum based on the updated user skill level and/or difficulty level.
The limitations of claim 1 under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers abstract ideas that fall under the groupings “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental process.” Specifically, the bolded elements recite a mental process involving observation of user inputs in the form of learning targets and performance, evaluation of the performance, and then applying judgment or opinion to arrange and optimize learning targets and curriculum lessons for the student. This can also be viewed as managing personal behavior or interactions between people such as between a music student and a teacher, where the student follows rules or instructions in the form of the personalized learning curriculum. Accordingly, claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements “computer implemented,” “in an apparatus,” that the data of the student’s performance is “electronic” data, and that the curriculum is output on a display. The additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the apparatus could be a small music studio, home office, note book, or similar analog apparatus). Even if the “apparatus” were construed only as described on page 5, lines 3–9 of applicant’s specification:
Fig. 1A schematically shows a user 10 and a system 100 according to an example embodiment. The system comprises a musical instrument 12, here a guitar and an apparatus 13 such as a tablet computer or a smartphone with a display 14. It shall also be appreciated that the apparatus 13 need not perform all processing locally. The apparatus 13 may in an embodiment operate as a terminal only acting as a man-machine interface, while processing is performed partially or entirely in a remote location, for example a remote server or a cloud-based service 20.
it is still a generic computing device. Likewise, the phrase “computer implemented” in the preamble and labeling the performance data as “electronic” merely provide a general link to a technological environment. The recitation of “on a display of the apparatus” and “rearrange the displayed personalized curriculum” are insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data and do not differentiate performing the abstract idea using pen and paper outputs. As an ordered combination, these additional elements provides only a general link to a technological environment, and amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea by “applying it” on a computer. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when the Step 2A, prong 2 considerations are reconsidered, even with respect to the claim as a whole, the outcome is the same. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea by “applying it” on an “apparatus” recited at a high level of generality. The insignificant extra-solution activity of “on a display of the apparatus” and “rearrange the displayed personalized curriculum,” when reconsidered, are well-understood, routine, and conventional consistent with presenting offers and gathering statistics as in OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 further recites receiving input of a user performance of at least one learning target of the personalized curriculum, which further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 further recites determining a reward parameter for the set of learning targets; wherein arranging the set of learning targets comprises arranging the set of learning targets based on the effort parameters and the reward parameter. Claim 3 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 further recites wherein arranging the set of learning targets comprises arranging the learning targets in order to minimize the sum of the effort parameters of the learning targets of the set of learning targets. Claim 4 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 depends from claim 3 and further recites wherein arranging the set of learning targets comprises arranging the learning targets in order to maximize the reward parameter. Claim 4 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 3 also applies here and claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 depends from claim 2 and further recites further comprising determining whether the user has completed the at least one learning target by analyzing the input of the user performance of the at least one learning target of the personalized curriculum. Claim 6 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 2 also applies here and claim 6 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 depends from claim 2 and further recites further comprising updating the determined user skill level by analyzing the input of the user performance of the at least one learning target of the personalized curriculum and/or by analyzing a user performance of a further musical piece.. Claim 7 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 2 also applies here and claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further recites further comprising updating the effort parameter of each learning target based on the updated user skill level and the difficulty level of each learning target; updating the reward parameter of the set of learning targets; and re-arranging the set of learning targets based on the updated effort parameter and/or the updated reward parameter; and providing an updated personalized training curriculum based on the re-arranged set of learning targets. Claim 8 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 7 also applies here and claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites further comprising adding learning targets to the set of learning targets based on the effort parameter of the learning targets of the set of learning targets and/or the reward parameter of the set of learning targets. Claim 9 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein determining the effort parameter comprises estimating the time required for the user to complete the learning target. Claim 10 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 depends from claim 3 and further recites wherein determining the reward parameter comprises estimating the time required between completing consecutive learning targets of the set of learning targets. Claim 11 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 3 also applies here and claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein a learning target of the set of learning targets is selected from a group of a song, a song version, a riff, a scale, a course and a melody. Claim 12 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 12 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further recites further comprising presenting the personalized training curriculum to the user; and receiving user input relating to the learning targets on the personalized training curriculum. Claim 13 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 13 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further recites wherein determining the effort parameter and/or the reward parameter is based on stored data on user performance on learning targets similar to the learning targets of the set of learning targets. Claim 14 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 13 also applies here and claim 14 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 depends from claim 1 and further recites further comprising presenting recommendations on further learning targets for the user. Claim 15 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 1 also applies here and claim 15 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites wherein the recommendations on further learning targets for the user comprise recommendations selected based on the user profile. Claim 16 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 15 also applies here and claim 16 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 depends from claim 15 and further recites wherein the recommendations on further learning targets for the user comprise a connection with a human teacher. Claim 17 further elaborates on the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the analysis of claim 15 also applies here and claim 17 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites an apparatus comprising at least one memory and processor collectively configured to cause the apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 and dependent claim 20 recites a non-transitory memory medium comprising a computer program, the computer program comprising computer program code configured to, when executed by an apparatus, to cause the apparatus to perform the method of claim 1. These dependent claims recite additional computer elements at a high level of generality and in a way that provides only a general link to the abstract idea of claim 1. Accordingly, the consideration of the additional elements under Step 2A, prong 1 and Step 2B leads to the same conclusion as with claim 1.
Dependent claim 22 recites wherein the personalized curriculum is displayed on the
display of the apparatus as an arranged set of learning target branches and the apparatus is
further configured to detect that the user is proceeding along one of the branches based on
the analyzed performance. The latter part of this claim, “detect that the user is proceeding along one of the branches based on the analyzed performance” further elaborates on the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 above. The former part of claim 22 recites the additional elements of displaying the curriculum on a display of the apparatus. As noted with respect to claim 1, the display of the curriculum is insignificant extra-solution activity that outputs the result of the abstract idea, and is consistent with concepts the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, particularly where the display here is recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, claim 22 is ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed June 12, 20256, have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The examiner has withdrawn the objection to the title of the invention.
Applicant argues on page 7 that the claimed invention “is not an abstract idea similar to eligibility example 37’s rearrangement of GUI icons based on use.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of the abstract idea is clearly identified in claim 1 in the rejection. Pointing to Example 37 is not persuasive because that example contains an abstract idea identified as a mental process, just as in the present claims.
Applicant argues that the analysis of Example 37 (presumably of claim 1 of that example) is instructive here, and therefore the present claim should also be found eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the eligibility of claim 1 of Example 37 is presumably based on the articulation of a technological improvement as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a). This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem. This is relevant when the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Applicant has not articulated how the claimed invention provides a technological solution to a technological problem. The examiner finds that the claimed invention addresses a human learning or pedagogical problem that is not technological in nature but rather is a problem rooted in managing behavior, relationships, or interactions between people, i.e., an improvement to the abstract idea. The high-level recitation of generic technology to output information that results from performing the mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the claim are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the comparison to Example 37 (presumably claim 1) is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues on page 8 that the claim should be found eligible at Step 2A, prong 2. The applicant points to specific limitations of the claim as the basis for the argument. However, as noted above, the examiner is more persuaded by the consideration that the claim only generally links the abstract idea—which is quite prevalent in the claim as shown in the rejection—to a technological environment. The technology in the claim is either there to implement the abstract idea (i.e., the mental steps that a tutor or teacher would undertake when evaluating a student’s performance and needed lesson plan) or to output the result of the abstract idea such as in a display. Neither of these satisfy the considerations that indicate integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g., improvement to the technology or another technical field, applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applying the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment). Therefore, the remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8–9 that under Step 2B the claim is eligible and points to principles from the decision in McRO v. Bandai. The invention in McRO was found not to be directed to an abstract idea, and is distinguishable from the present claims which do recite an abstract idea. Additionally, and as noted above, the invention in McRO improved the technology of 3D animation, which is native to the technological environment of computers. The invention in the present application improves teaching and learning which are not native to any technology because it is an abstract idea as noted in the rejection above.
Applicant argues on page 9 that claim 22 is eligible for the same reasons as previous remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons provided above.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
As discussed above, tutorial system 300 communicates with one or more student workstations 304, instructor workstations 308 and media production systems 100 (collectively referred to herein as client workstations) over network connection 316. Each client workstation can be a personal computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), telephone, television or other device linked to computer network 316 and including a display device with the ability to select one or more curriculum lessons. In this embodiment, each student 720 and instructor 716 uses a student workstation 304 and instructor workstation 308, respectively. (Holtz)
A system for providing a specialized learning curriculum over a computer network, comprising: at least one server computer associated with an education content provider; and a plurality of client computers associated with a plurality of users, said plurality of client computers being connected to said at least one server computer over the computer network, wherein said at least one server computer incorporates at least one server application including one or more instructions for receiving personal information relating to at least one user interest, one or more instructions for storing said personal information on said at least one server computer, one or more instructions for generating a specialized learning curriculum based upon said personal information, and one or more instructions for displaying said specialized learning curriculum to said user (Vivian)
The job and competency mapping logic 126 generates and displays a personalized training curriculum for the employee (e.g., user 152) (310). The personalized training curriculum may include courses that are internal and/or external to the organization. (Pennington)
The screen displays personalized content and links such as for My Curriculum 1008, My Courses 1010, My CPE Reporting 1020, and My Certificates 1022. (Perrault)
A personalized or otherwise adaptive knowledge profile is developed and displayed for each learner on an iterative basis for each round of learning, with the questions and associated remediation provided in each round of learning being made available in a personalized, adaptive manner based on the configuration of the module or chapter or curriculum and how that configuration modifies the underlying algorithm. (Burgin)
Using a GUI (e.g., the administrator, instructor, learner, or parent GUI, described below), an administrator, instructor, learner, or parent may input a desired GSE score to be achieved in a specific time period (e.g., moving from a 3rd grade level score to a 4th grade level score within the next school year). The disclosed system may identify specific areas, categories, and/or learning objectives for which the learner scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer for the associated assessment materials), and generate a learner curriculum comprising core curriculum content including practice learning modules (e.g., practice exercises, reading comprehension assignments, speaking interaction practice, videos, virtual reality (VR) interactions, quizzes/tests, etc.) identified within the system as being associated with, and for improving, the identified skills or topics, which must be completed in the designated time frame to achieve the desired GSE score. These learning modules may be stored as software modules and/or data records within the database. The server may then generate a report, to be displayed on the learner, instructor, administrator, and/or parent GUI including the learner’s GSE score, the desired GSE score to be completed within the time frame, and access (e.g., hyperlinks) to the learner’s personalized core curriculum. (Palau)
As shown at 24a, the OSES Server may identify the educational curriculum information associated with the User, and determine, using user’s educational curriculum information, User-specific Interactive Study Wall filter parameters which may be used by the OSES Server to dynamically display a filtered Student Interactive Study Wall GUI which is customized and/or personalized to display Interactive Study Wall posts which are determined to be relevant to the User’s associated educational curriculum information. (Fieldman)
In other words, in some embodiments, rather than server 112 generating a control panel for a personalized curriculum 375 on the learner GUI 360, server 112 may generate recommendations for each learner’s personalized curriculum 375 displayed on the instructor GUI 340, which the instructor may then recommend to the learner. (Harris)
The learner may easily access new or previously completed content from their learner dashboard. Personalized curriculum 130 may display learning content clearly and efficiently, without the need to switch sites. Additionally, personalized curriculum 130 that is delivered virtually may be displayed through a single virtual environment to streamline the learning experience. In view of the foregoing, personalized curriculum 130 may reduce duplication of learning content design and creation. (LeBlanc)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick McAtee whose telephone number is (571)272-7575. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am - 4:30pm ET.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Patrick McAtee
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights