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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Preliminary Remarks
This is a reply to the amendments filed on 05/11/2026, in which, claims 1, 2, and 9-12 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application with claims 1, 9, and 10 being independent claims.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Mental processes are still possible even though a signal processor is involved. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite, “estimating a degree of attention from viewers attracted by the playing of the drum included in the performance image based on a feature quantity of at least one of a movement of an arm of a drummer, a movement of a gaze of the drummer, or a movement of an upper body of the drummer, caused by a drum performance shown in a learning image”. These claims that require a signal processor may still recite a mental process because it could be performed by human’s metal process. The signal processor contains an image obtainer that obtains images from a computer is merely data gathering. After images obtained by the image obtainer, estimating decisions according to a degree of attention from viewers attracted by the playing of the drum included in the performance image based on a feature quantity of at least one of a movement of an arm of a drummer, a movement of a gaze of the drummer, or a movement of an upper body of the drummer, caused by a drum performance shown in a learning image could be performed by humans without a computer. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed method of processing steps was performed on a computer.
The learning model should be treated as a generic computer component that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Dependent claims inherit the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection based on its dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 10 would be allowable if overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection. Claims 2-8 and 11-20 depend on claim 1, therefore dependent claims would be also allowable if overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIENRU YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
NIENRU YANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/NIENRU YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights