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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 22 December 2025. Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, and 13 were amended. Claims 2 and 12 were canceled. Claims 21-22 were newly added. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1, 3-9, and 21 fall within the category of a process. Claim 10 falls within the category of a manufacture. Claims 11, 13-20, and 22 fall within the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites a method of generating music that encodes personalized information, the method comprising:
generating a personalized sonification model based on music modeling data pertaining to a user, wherein the music modeling data includes a personalized relationship parameter representing a relationship between a musical feature and a wellness level as perceived by the user;
receiving physiological data pertaining to the user, wherein the physiological data is related to at least one of a physical wellness or a behavioral wellness of the user;
generating a melody, wherein the melody [encompasses] a wellness information or modification based on the personalized sonification model and the physiological data; and
providing the melody to the user to convey the wellness information or modification.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “music therapy,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Music therapy” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient.
Further, the claims can be considered to be directed to a mental process because it recites concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
[the melody] encodes a wellness information or modification based on the personalized sonification model and the physiological data (i.e. the information is reduced to a form of computer code, with the use of the word “encodes”).
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. This additional element merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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 element(s), individually and in combination, merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the musical feature includes at least one of a tempo, a pitch, a key, a dynamic, a smoothness, or a chord progression.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
receiving the physiological data includes receiving sensor data from a smartphone or wearable device associated with the user.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 4, wherein:
the sensor data includes at least one of physical activity data, mood data, or emotional state data.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 4, wherein:
receiving the physiological includes data generating a score corresponding to the sensor data and converting the score to a physical activity level.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
generating the melody includes creating the melody with notes or note combinations configured to encode the wellness information or modification.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
generating the melody includes retrieving a preexisting song, and modifying at least one musical feature of the preexisting song to encode the wellness information or modification.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 8 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
receiving a feedback from the user regarding the provided melody; and
modifying the personalized sonification model based on the feedback.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 is considered to be ineligible.
Claim 10 is parallel in nature to claim 1. However, claim 10 recites the following additional element:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claims 11 and 13-17 are parallel in nature to claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8. However, independent claim 11 recites the following additional element:
at least one processor; and
a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: [the method of claim 1].
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 11 and 13-17 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 18 recites the system of claim 11, wherein:
the system is a smartphone or wearable device associated with the user.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 18 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites the system of claim 18, wherein:
providing the melody to the user includes outputting an audio signal corresponding to the melody via an audio output of the smartphone or wearable device.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 19 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 recites the system of claim 18, wherein:
generating the melody includes transmitting the physiological data to an external device, and
receiving the melody from the external device.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 20 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
generating the personalized sonification model includes presenting the musical feature to the user and receiving a response from the user indicating the wellness level as perceived by the user.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 21 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 22 recites the system of claim 11, wherein:
generating the personalized sonification model includes presenting the musical feature to the user and receiving a response from the user indicating the wellness level as perceived by the user.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 11 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 22 is considered to be ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3-11, and 13-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bass (U.S. 2020/0214615), hereinafter “Bass,” in view of Grace et al. (U.S. 2021/0030308), hereinafter “Grace.”
Regarding claim 1, Bass discloses a method of generating music that encodes personalized information, the method comprising:
generating a personalized sonification model based on music modeling data pertaining to a user (See Bass [0037] system serves as a bridge for software in devices that gather sensory data such gait information, kinematics, along with important end users information regarding their music preferences, age, height, weight, gender, diagnosis, name, as well as have a preexisting catalog of music in formats such as DSD or its equivalent which is encoded with the corresponding sensorimotor functional data as a key code for the audio therapy stream generator to synchronize with. [0043] the system compiles input including, but not limited to pertinent patient profile data, sensor data, music catalog (including encoded functional data: i.e. sensorimotor, respiratory, heart rate correlates), and an ongoing/real time, client audio stream treatment history catalog. [0032] In some embodiments the medical device records data from the patient including name, height, weight, age, gender, date of birth, heart rate, blood pressure, strength, stride, step length and/or step speed, diagnosis and the like. See also [0025].);
receiving physiological data pertaining to the user (See Bass [0037] serves as a bridge for software in devices that gather sensory data such gait information, kinematics, along with important end users information regarding their music preferences, age, height, weight, gender, diagnosis, name, as well as have a preexisting catalog of music in formats such as DSD or its equivalent which is encoded with the corresponding sensorimotor functional data as a key code for the audio therapy stream generator to synchronize with. [0043] compiles input including, but not limited to pertinent patient profile data, sensor data, music catalog (including encoded functional data: i.e. sensorimotor, respiratory, heart rate correlates), and an ongoing/real time, client audio stream treatment history catalog.), wherein the physiological data is related to at least one of a physical wellness or a behavioral wellness of the user (See Bass [0025] the music has been prepared based on the patient's characteristics, including ailment and treatment history, and sensor information. [0028] musical structure relates to and impacts non-musical functional movement of a person.);
generating a melody (See Bass [0029] Creation of music pairing (sensorimotor) movement algorithm that can deliver a prescribed audio file instantly to a user once movement diagnostics sensors/software has given movement diagnostics information to the music pairing (sensorimotor) movement algorithm. [0042] system plays different tracks and adds/subtracts based on the monitored patient characteristics. [0039] tracks used by the system are defined as specific parts of music that pertain to particular therapeutic effect.), wherein the melody encodes a wellness information or modification (See Bass [0031] composition, recording and technical integration of music tracks into medical devices used to improve the rehabilitation patients with motor defects such as those with Parkinson's Disease and children with Cerebral Palsy. Rehabilitation takes the form of many activities including but not limited to walking, dancing, running, using an elliptical trainer, treadmill, mobile bicycle, stationary bicycle, weights, and the like.) based on the personalized sonification model and the physiological data (See Bass [0037] serves as a bridge for software in devices that gather sensory data such gait information, kinematics, along with important end users information regarding their music preferences, age, height, weight, gender, diagnosis, name, as well as have a preexisting catalog of music in formats such as DSD or its equivalent which is encoded with the corresponding sensorimotor functional data as a key code for the audio therapy stream generator to synchronize with. [0044] These inputs are interpreted and combined to select, mix and match with music composition stems and functional desired outcomes (i.e. sensorimotor, NICU oxygen saturation levels, cardio/pulmonary, pain/analgesia, stress/anxiety, mood states, cognition/speech).); and
providing the melody to the user to convey the wellness information or modification (See Bass [0042] system plays different tracks and adds/subtracts based on the monitored patient characteristics. [0039] tracks used by the system are defined as specific parts of music that pertain to particular therapeutic effect.).
Bass does not disclose:
wherein the music modeling data includes a personalized relationship parameter representing a relationship between a musical feature and a wellness level as perceived by the user.
Grace teaches:
wherein the music modeling data includes a personalized relationship parameter representing a relationship between a musical feature and a wellness level as perceived by the user (See Grace [0035] instead of sending text/photographic emojis, users of these methods, systems, and apparatuses may send musical emojis to express how they are feeling. [0038] instead of sending text/photographic emojis, users of these methods, systems, and apparatuses may send musical emojis to express how they are feeling. [0039] add emotional nuance to the communication through music to more effectively express how a person is feeling. [0040] a user may generate music associated with different emotions and smoothly transition between generating music associated with different emotions. The unique input of each user will cause the music that is generated to uniquely vary in sound and expression.).
The system of Grace is applicable to the disclosure of Bass as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using music to modify user physical activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bass to include physical activity metrics as taught by Grace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bass in order to provide improvements to the functionality and effectiveness of entrainment sonification (see Grace [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, wherein:
the musical feature includes at least one of a tempo, a pitch, a key, a dynamic, a smoothness, or a chord progression (See Bass [0027] The system provides for tailoring musical composition to the user, subject or patient by modifying a musical characteristic such as pace, pitch, tone, increasing scales, decreasing scales, increasing the number and/or complexity of the musical instruments, and/or increasing or decreasing the complexity of the harmonic structure or melody. [0040] discussion of tempo ranges. [0041] In some embodiments musical attributes that can be modified and have therapeutic or rehabilitative benefits for a patient include, but are not limited to tempo, meter, force.).
Regarding claim 4, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, wherein:
receiving the physiological data includes receiving sensor data from a smartphone or wearable device associated with the user (See Bass [0032] sensor information is provided to the system for storage and analysis. By sensor information is meant any information obtained from or related to a patient physical or mental attribute, such as EKG, treadmill data, FitBit sensor data. [0043] the monitor may be worn by the patient. [0050] can include a portable electronic device that the user may hold in his or her hand, such as a smartphone.).
Regarding claim 5, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 4 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, wherein:
the sensor data includes at least one of physical activity data, mood data, or emotional state data (See Bass [0035] Whether worn on the patient or in connection with exercise equipment, monitors made take a variety of characteristics about the patient, including heart rate, respiration, strength, heel strike, gait stride symmetry, velocity, cadence, balance, weight shift, body rotation, arm swinging, normalized walking pattern and the like.).
Regarding Claim 6, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 4 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, wherein:
receiving the physiological data includes generating a score corresponding to the sensor data… (See Bass [0011] system can compile user information and sensor information to generate a personalized user score.).
Bass does not disclose:
converting the score to a physical activity level.
Grace teaches:
converting the score to a physical activity level (See Grace [0239] the system can use the generated music to increase a user’s steps per minute, which is a type of physical activity level. This means the system calculates an initial score/level, provides the music to increase that score/level, and then measures the score/level again to determine that the level has been reached.).
The system of Grace is applicable to the disclosure of Bass as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using music to modify user physical activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bass to include physical activity metrics as taught by Grace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bass in order to provide improvements to the functionality and effectiveness of entrainment sonification (see Grace [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, wherein:
generating the melody includes creating the melody with notes or note combinations configured to encode the wellness information or modification (See Bass [0042] system plays different tracks and adds/subtracts based on the monitored patient characteristics. [0039] tracks used by the system are defined as specific parts of music that pertain to particular therapeutic effect.).
Regarding claim 8, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, wherein:
generating the melody includes retrieving a preexisting song, and modifying at least one musical feature of the preexisting song to encode the wellness information or modification (See Bass [0038] system mallows for upload of songs by the user and adjustment to those songs for the purposes of the therapy. Adjustments include but are not limited to the ability to control around 5%-10% only increases in tempo and to integrate sensory data and sync the data with prescribed therapy protocol.).
Regarding claim 9, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a feedback from the user regarding the provided melody (See Bass [0044] automatic shut off of musical stream when sensor data inputs indicate patient is not responding within functional outcomes ranges preset within formulas.); and
modifying the personalized sonification model based on the feedback (See Bass [0044] automatic shut off of musical stream when sensor data inputs indicate patient is not responding within functional outcomes ranges preset within formulas.).
Regarding claim 10, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 10 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-17, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 as discussed above. Claims 11 and 13-17 recite a system that performs a method that is substantially similar to the method of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8. Accordingly, claims 11 and 13-17 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 18, Bass in view of Grace discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is a smartphone or wearable device associated with the user (See Bass [0044] It may be used within stationary and ambulatory clinical and non-clinical settings in both wearable and detached device form. [0050] system can include a portable electronic device that the user may hold in his or her hand, such as a smartphone.).
Regarding claim 19, Bass in view of Grace discloses the system of claim 18 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a system, wherein:
providing the melody to the user includes outputting an audio signal corresponding to the melody via an audio output of the smartphone or wearable device (See Bass [0030] A delivery system has capacity for full band width audio files, and has left/right capacity (i.e. headphones, left/right speakers (channels). [0056] device can have audio output circuitry.).
Regarding claim 20, Bass in view of Grace discloses the system of claim 18 as discussed above. Bass further discloses a system, wherein:
generating the melody includes transmitting the physiological data to an external device, and receiving the melody from the external device (See Bass [0062] electronic device can be coupled a host device for data transfers, synching the communications device, software or firmware updates, providing performance information to a remote source or performing any other suitable operation that can require electronic device to be coupled to a host device.).
Regarding claim 21, Bass in view of Grace discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Bass does not further disclose a method, wherein:
generating the personalized sonification model includes presenting the musical feature to the user and receiving a response from the user indicating the wellness level as perceived by the user.
Grace teaches:
generating the personalized sonification model includes presenting the musical feature to the user and receiving a response from the user indicating the wellness level as perceived by the user (See Grace [0035] instead of sending text/photographic emojis, users of these methods, systems, and apparatuses may send musical emojis to express how they are feeling. [0038] instead of sending text/photographic emojis, users of these methods, systems, and apparatuses may send musical emojis to express how they are feeling. [0039] add emotional nuance to the communication through music to more effectively express how a person is feeling. [0040] a user may generate music associated with different emotions and smoothly transition between generating music associated with different emotions. The unique input of each user will cause the music that is generated to uniquely vary in sound and expression. For the user to select which music to use for different emotion levels, the system is understood to present the option to the user.).
The system of Grace is applicable to the disclosure of Bass as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using music to modify user physical activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bass to include physical activity metrics as taught by Grace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bass in order to provide improvements to the functionality and effectiveness of entrainment sonification (see Grace [0004]).
Regarding claim 22, Bass in view of Grace discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Bass does not further disclose a system, wherein:
generating the personalized sonification model includes presenting the musical feature to the user and receiving a response from the user indicating the wellness level as perceived by the user.
Grace teaches:
generating the personalized sonification model includes presenting the musical feature to the user and receiving a response from the user indicating the wellness level as perceived by the user (See Grace [0035] instead of sending text/photographic emojis, users of these methods, systems, and apparatuses may send musical emojis to express how they are feeling. [0038] instead of sending text/photographic emojis, users of these methods, systems, and apparatuses may send musical emojis to express how they are feeling. [0039] add emotional nuance to the communication through music to more effectively express how a person is feeling. [0040] a user may generate music associated with different emotions and smoothly transition between generating music associated with different emotions. The unique input of each user will cause the music that is generated to uniquely vary in sound and expression. For the user to select which music to use for different emotion levels, the system is understood to present the option to the user.).
The system of Grace is applicable to the disclosure of Bass as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using music to modify user physical activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bass to include physical activity metrics as taught by Grace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bass in order to provide improvements to the functionality and effectiveness of entrainment sonification (see Grace [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues that the claims do not fall into one of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas because they do not match any of the examples given in MPEP2106.04(a) (see Applicant Remarks pages 7-9). This is not persuasive because that list of examples in the MPEP is never stated to be exhaustive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claims include the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient, which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis must continue to consider any additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims effect a particular transformation and therefore are patent eligible (see Applicant Remarks pages 9-11). This is not persuasive. The MPEP is clear that the machine and transformation test is an important clue, but is not a stand-alone test for eligibility (see MPEP 2106.05(c); “if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test.”). When considering under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the present claims do not include additional elements that amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, any analysis under the machine or transformation test is not enough to make the claims patent eligible.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite a particular treatment or prophylaxis (see Applicant Remarks pages 11-13). This is not persuasive. First, in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Here, the claims merely provide the melody to convey wellness information. This is not a particular medical condition or disease, but could be attempting to treat a myriad of mental or emotional conditions connected to the broad idea of “wellness.” Second, the treatment or prophylaxis limitation must be "particular," i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Again, here we have a broad recitation of a melody being generated with physiological data. There is no recited particular melody, particular melodic structure, particular musical structure, etc. Nor are the claims particular in their use of a type of physiological data to generate the melody, which could include heart rate, steps per minute, brain activity, breathing skin conductance, just to name a few. Accordingly, the claims do not effect a particular treatment as described in the MPEP and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously uncited portions of the Grace reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Meier-Keller (U.S. 2025/0087333) teaches a system and method to treat a psychological issue of a user by providing customized therapy media to the user based on the psychological state of the user.
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 BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684