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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive and the art rejection has been withdrawn. However, the 101 and double patent rejection still remains.
Regarding the 101 rejection, claim 43 recites mental-process-like steps (transliterating and generating data). As recited, the specification nor the claims recite no explicit machine/architecture and there is no stated improvement to computer/ASR technology. The claims merely recite analyzing and transforming information to output a transcript. There is no integration into a practical application.
According to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained above, the claims collectively and individually, fall within categories courts and USPTO guidance commonly treat as abstract ideas: mental processes (recognizing/extracting/organizing information) and fundamental data-processing/manipulation.
Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicants argue that the claimed features are a technical solution to the technical problem of treating or improving a comprehension disorder or neurological disorder or disease. It is noted that although the invention mentions improving a disorder or disease, such data is not reflected in the claim. In the instant claims, the abstract idea results in an output of generic “information” that is not utilized in any particular fashion or for any particular purpose. It does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. While the claimed invention may have some use in technical fields, that use or implementation in particular technology or technological environment has not been recited in the claimed invention. Absent these recitations, the only claim elements that remain are generic computer components that do not qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
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 43-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The independent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of transforming textual input into a musical score, as explained in detail below.
The claims as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, memory and interface nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, receiving text input (can be done by a user receiving text), transliterating the text input into a standardized phonemic representation of the text input (can be done by the user modifying the text to phonemes), determining for the phonemic text input, a plurality of spoken pause lengths based on one or more prosodic features of the text input and a plurality of spoken phoneme lengths to create a timed text input (can be done by the user analyzing the phonemes and pauses to determine the lengths), generating a plurality of matching metrics for each of a respective plurality of portions of the timed text input against a plurality of melody segments (can be done by the user synchronizing the data) and generating a patterned musical message from the timed text input and the plurality of melody segments based at least in part on the plurality of matching metrics and causing the patterned musical message to be played audibly on a transducer (can be done by a user outputting data), thereby treating the comprehension disorder or neurological disorder or disease in the subject (can be done by the user synchronizing the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all 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. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are non-statutory language and recite claim language that is not significantly more. Playing audio to a user to assist with various impairments by modifying what is presented is not statutory.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 43-62 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,049,492, hereinafter referenced as Van Der Ploeg. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 43, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method of transforming textual input to a musical score comprising: receiving text input; transliterating the text input into a standardized phonemic representation of the text input; determining for the phonemic text input, a plurality of spoken pause lengths and a plurality of spoken phoneme lengths based on one or more prosodic features of the text input to create a timed text input; mapping the plurality of spoken pause lengths to a respective plurality of sung pause lengths; mapping the plurality of spoken phoneme lengths to a respective plurality of sung phoneme lengths; generating, from the plurality of sung pause lengths and the plurality of sung phoneme lengths, a timed text input; generating a plurality of matching metrics for each of a respective plurality of portions of the timed text input against a plurality of melody segments; and generating a patterned musical message from the timed text input and the plurality of melody segments based at least in part on the plurality of matching metrics, causing the patterned musical message to be played audibly on a transducer, thereby treating the comprehension disorder or neurological disorder or disease in the subject matter (claim 1).
Regarding claim 44, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the method is performed in real-time or in near-real- time, and further comprises causing the patterned musical message to be played audibly on a transducer, and wherein the feedback information indicates a response of the subject to the patterned musical message being played audibly on the transducer (claims 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 45, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the patterned musical message is expected to optimize, for a subject, at least one of an understanding of the input message and a recall of the input message (claim 4).
Regarding claim 46, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method further comprising providing to a subject a visual image relating to the patterned musical message aimed at enhancing comprehension and learning (claim 5).
Regarding claim 47, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the patterned musical message is presented to a subject having a cognitive impairment, a behavioral impairment, or a learning impairment (claim 6).
Regarding claim 48, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the subject has a comprehension disorder, including at least one of autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, aphasia, dementia, dyspraxia, dyslexia, dysphasia, apraxia, stroke, traumatic brain injury, brain surgery, surgery, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, age-related cognitive impairment, a language comprehension impairment, an intellectual disorder, a developmental disorder, stress, anxiety, Williams syndrome, Prader Willi syndrome, Smith Magenis syndrome, Bardet Biedl syndrome, or Down's syndrome or other neurological disorder (claim 7).
Regarding claim 49, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the input is a spoken message or written message (claim 8).
Regarding claim 50, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the subject selects the input text from a plurality of texts (claim 9).
Regarding claim 51, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method further comprising: generating a textual message relating to the input text and representing an output message to be displayed to a subject; modifying at least one character of the textual message in a manner expected to optimize at least one of the subject's understanding and recall of the textual message as seen on a visual display; and displaying the modified textual message on a display device (claim 10).
Regarding claim 52, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein modifying the at least one character of the textual message in the manner expected to optimize the subject 's understanding and/or recollection of the textual message includes at least one of removing or modifying at least one segment of the at least one character, modifying a size of the at least one character relative to other characters in the textual message, and modifying a display time of the at least one character relative to the other characters in the textual message (claim 11).
Regarding claim 53, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein generating the patterned musical message from the timed text input and the plurality of melody segments based at least in part on the plurality of matching metrics comprises: accessing pitch information and timing information about a note in a melody segment; and setting a pitch and a timing for a phoneme in the timed text input based on the pitch information and the timing information (claim 12).
Regarding claim 54, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the output device is at least one of a virtual reality device, an augmented reality headset device, and a smart speaker executing a digital personal assistant (claim 13).
Regarding claim 55, Van Der Ploeg discloses a real time musical translation device (RETM) comprising: an input interface; a processor; an audio output component; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive text input from the input interface; determine, for the text input, a plurality of spoken pause lengths and a plurality of spoken phoneme lengths; map the plurality of spoken pause lengths to a respective plurality of sung pause lengths; map the plurality of spoken phoneme lengths to a respective plurality of sung phoneme lengths; generate, from the plurality of sung pause lengths and the plurality of sung phoneme lengths, a timed text input; generate a plurality of matching metrics for each of a respective plurality of portions of the timed text input against a plurality of melody segments; generate a patterned musical message from the timed text input and the plurality of melody segments based at least in part on the plurality of matching metrics; and output the patterned musical message using the audio output component (claim 16).
Regarding claim 56, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method further comprising a display device, wherein the processor is further configured to provide to a subject a visual image on the display device, the visual image relating to the patterned musical message (claim 17).
Regarding claim 57, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the display device is incorporated into the output device (claim 18).
Regarding claim 58, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a textual message relating to the input text and representing an output message to be displayed to a subject; modify at least one character of the textual message in a manner expected to optimize the subject's understanding of the textual message; and display the modified textual message on the display device (claim 19).
Regarding claim 59, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the processor is configured to modify the at least one character of the textual message in the manner expected to optimize the subject's understanding and/or recollection of the textual message by at least one of removing or modifying at least one segment of the at least one character, modifying a size of the at least one character relative to other characters in the textual message, and modifying a display time of the at least one character relative to the other characters in the textual message (claim 20).
Regarding claim 60-62, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method wherein the subject has an attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, dysphasia, a language comprehension impairment, an intellectual disorder, developmental disorder or suffered a stroke (claim 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on 571.272.5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights