DETAILED ACTION
This is a FINAL office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1–21 in application number 18476382.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim 18 is currently canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1–21 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 .
Objections
The title of the invention, “Personalized Curriculum,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Personalizing Curriculum Sequence Based on Learner Skill and Lesson Challenge Analysis. Applicant may suggest a more descriptive title along these lines.
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 and 19–21 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 and 19–21. In the present application, claims 1–17, 19, and 21 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.
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,” and that the data of the student’s performance is “electronic” data. 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.
Likewise, the phrase “computer implemented” in the preamble and labeling the performance data as “electronic” merely provide a general link to a technological environment. 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. 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 21 further recites that the input data is digital audio input and/or the input data is received via an audio input port, which characterizes the necessary data gathering for carrying out the abstract idea identified in claim 1 as “digital” or generically using an “input port” to ingest that data. This is necessary data gathering as a prelude to analyzing the data of a user performance, and therefore is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong 2 this is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Upon reconsideration at Step 2B, the examiner finds that evidence supports the conclusion that communicating musical performance over digital inputs and outputs is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The evidence that supports this conclusion is the ubiquity of the use of Musical Instrument Digital Interface (i.e., “MIDI”) throughtout the prior art of record as an existing technological specifically designed (and named) to generate and capture performances on musical instruments in a digital format. Here is a non-exhaustive list of examples from the prior art previously made of record discussing how MIDI is used to capture musical performance information as digital audio signals:
An exemplary electronic music instrument suitable for the musical education system of the present invention has a Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI). Conventional MIDI electronic musical instruments are often keyboarded musical instruments. With the help of electronic synthesizing techniques, these MIDI keyboards can generate sounds that simulate the sounds of a variety of musical instruments, such as piano and even stringed instruments. (Yung 0074)
As one non-limiting example, a keyboard with a MIDI interface may be connected to the processing device 1508 and the diagrams discussed herein may be displayed on the display 1510 as the keyboard is played. (Lemons 0057)
An aspect of the invention provides an interactive game engine for learning to play a guitar. In one embodiment of the invention, any guitar, including a MIDI guitar, an OSC guitar, or a guitar using any other format or protocol, is connected to a computer or other platform. … The signal processing module 206 may convert the analog or digital audio signal produced by the guitar into a digital signal read in by the computer 207 or other platform. The note manager 209 may process the analog or digital audio signal (such as a MIDI signal or signal of another format), and compare it against the selected song. (Epstein 0034–35)
The network interface 21 provides a bi-directional receiver/transmitter interface between the student terminal and a network such as the Internet through a telephone line for example. Through the network interface, the student terminal can receive application software such as music training programs and various data. The MIDI interface 22 transfers MIDI messages between an external MIDI device, and receives MIDI event data from the performance control 23 such as a MIDI keyboard. (Tohgi, c5:19–28)
The tone generator circuit 2J is capable of simultaneously generating tone signals in a plurality of channels on the basis of performance information (data based on the MIDI standards) given from the CPU 21 via the data and address bus 2M. (Yamaura, c8:46–50)
In the case of MIDI musical instruments, timing, velocity, pitch bend wheel are examples of musical characteristics that may be evaluated. (Lee 0158)
There are many other examples in the prior art previously cited, and newly cited references mention this as well. The evidence shows that not only is MIDI a standard technology for capturing musical performances as digital audio through a MIDI-compatible port, but this standard is widely-used throughout the field of consumer and professional recording. The newly cited prior art provides additional evidence that MIDI has been used for more than 40 years:
As the control information for automatic performance, information based on the MIDI standard, for example, may be employed. The MIDI standard was created for the purpose of providing input and output terminals of a standard which is common to electronic musical instruments, rhythm boxes, automatic performance devices (sequencers) and the like and thereby rendering musical data transmitted through these instruments and devices interchangeable. Musical instruments of the MIDI standard can be interconnected and performed simultaneously notwithstanding that these musical instruments are not the same products or products of the same manufacturer. Performance information which can be transmitted in accordance with the MIDI standard includes musical instrument identity information, key information, bend information of a synthesizer, sustain pedal information and tone color changing information. If, accordingly, musical instruments of the MIDI standard are used as the musical instruments 12 and 14 of FIG. 1, output information of these musical instruments can be recorded on the R-DAT 10 and automatically performed. (Kumaoka, c3:31–52)
Therefore, the additional elements of claim 21 are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and claim 21 is therefore 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 November 3, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Notwithstanding applicant’s remarks on page 6, the 112(b) rejections are reconsidered in view of the amendments to claims 19 and 20 and the rejections are withdrawn.
The remarks on pages 7–8 regarding the 101 rejection are not persuasive. As shown in the updated rejection above, the newly added portions of claim 1 are primarily reciting the previously identified abstract idea, while the addition of “computer implemented” and “electronic” data provide only a general link to the technological environment. While the remarks refer to applicant’s specification, the specific features identified in the specification (e.g., “electrical cable 16 or microphone 17 which may be used to obtain electronic user data” and “wherein ‘electric signals representing the user's playing on a musical instrument and comparing the obtained electric signals to the data pertaining to the virtual exercise’”) are either a general link to the technological environment or not positively recited in the claim. In other words, other than labelling the musical performance data as “electrical,” there is nothing recited in the claim that specifically changes the abstract idea as a result of the data merely being “electrical” versus digital, analog, acoustical, or other musical performance data. The high level of generality of the additional elements in the claim fails to provide more than a general link to the technological environment, leading to the conclusion that the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the remarks are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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:
the MIDI recorder 10 is connected to an electronic musical instrument 60 complying with the MIDI standards and comprising both a keyboard as an input device and a sound source as an output device (musical tone forming circuit), thus constituting an automatic performance system (Kimpara).
Speech or sound that is passed through the arbitrator 520 is processed using a voice processor 522 to vary the pitch of the speech generated. Preferably, the voice processor 522 is implemented using a Roland VP-70 voice processing unit which includes a standard voice input port 551 for receiving the audio from the arbitrator 520 and a Midi Data Interface at ports 553 which are designed to communicate with other Midi-compatible units. (Lang)
As the control information for automatic performance, information based on the MIDI standard, for example, may be employed. The MIDI standard was created for the purpose of providing input and output terminals of a standard which is common to electronic musical instruments, rhythm boxes, automatic performance devices (sequencers) and the like and thereby rendering musical data transmitted through these instruments and devices interchangeable. Musical instruments of the MIDI standard can be interconnected and performed simultaneously notwithstanding that these musical instruments are not the same products or products of the same manufacturer. Performance information which can be transmitted in accordance with the MIDI standard includes musical instrument identity information, key information, bend information of a synthesizer, sustain pedal information and tone color changing information. If, accordingly, musical instruments of the MIDI standard are used as the musical instruments 12 and 14 of FIG. 1, output information of these musical instruments can be recorded on the R-DAT 10 and automatically performed. (Kumaoka)
Input unit 201 is formed of a plurality of drum pads #1 to #6 performed by the player. Respective drum pads can output in parallel. The input rhythm pattern performance information 202 corresponds to MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) standard. This information comprises a note-on data (a velocity data representing a strength of the drum pad) produced by striking the drum pad or a note-off data automatically transmitted after the note-on data transmitted. Respective drum pads #1 to #5 correspond to five kinds of drums such as bass drum, snare, low-tom, high-tom and high-hat in the drum set. The drum pad #6 is a pad for controlling switch control unit 208 and will be described later. (Nakajima)
The present invention provides a digital signal processing based synthesizer/audio processing system having the unique capability of being able to reconfigure itself extremely quickly in order to generate musical signals in response to real time control information from a keyboard, modulation controllers, standard MIDI inputs etc. The system is designed around an array of digital signal processors with both hardware and software enhancements which allow it to work in real time. The system enables dynamic voice allocation in a digital signal processing based electronic music synthesizer, between voices requiring differing digital signal processing algorithms for execution. (Limberis)
The History of MIDI Collection (showing the historical precursors to MIDI and linking to how MIDI developed in the early 1980s through widespread commercial use in the late 1980s forward) (MIDI Association, https://midi.org/the-history-of-midi)
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 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