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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/17/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the non patent literature Angel Sound do not comply the requirement 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5) since the non patent literature lacks date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 20-22 recite(s):
A method for auditory training, the method comprising:
providing a test sound having a first sound pattern for at least one characteristic of a sound;
based on a user input that is input through a user interface for receiving a visual pattern, providing, through the user interface, a first visual object having a first visual pattern corresponding to the user input, wherein a first sound, which is substantially synchronized with a detection time point of the user input and has at least one characteristic identified based on position of the user input defined in the user interface, is provided; and
based on identifying an event for providing a second visual pattern corresponding to the test sound, providing a second visual object having the second visual pattern corresponding to at least one characteristic of the first sound pattern.
20. A system for auditory training, comprising:
a server; and
an electronic device including at least one processor, wherein the server is configured to provide instructions to the electronic device based on a connection to the server by the electronic device and/or a request to the server, wherein the instructions, when executed based on at least a portion of the at least one processor of the electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform at least one operation, and wherein the at least one operation comprises:
providing a test sound having a first sound pattern for at least one characteristic of a sound;
based on a user input that is input through a user interface for receiving a visual pattern, providing, through the user interface, a first visual object having a first visual pattern corresponding to the user input, wherein a first sound, which is substantially synchronized with a detection time point of the user input and has at least one characteristic identified based on the position of the user input defined in the user interface, is provided; and
based on identifying an event for providing a second visual pattern corresponding to the test sound, providing a second visual object having the second visual pattern corresponding to at least one characteristic of the first sound pattern of the test sound.
21. A method for auditory training by a system including a server and an electronic device, the method comprising:
providing, by the server, instructions to the electronic device based on a connection to the server by the electronic device and/or a request to the server; and executing, by the electronic device, the instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed based on at least a portion of at least one processor of the electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform at least one operation, wherein the at least one operation comprises:
providing a test sound having a first sound pattern for at least one characteristic of a sound;
based on a user input that is input through a user interface for receiving a visual pattern, providing, through the user interface, a first visual object having a first visual pattern corresponding to the user input, wherein a first sound, which is substantially synchronized with a detection time point of the user input and has at least one characteristic identified based on the position of the user input defined in the user interface, is provided; and
based on identifying an event for providing a second visual pattern corresponding to the test sound, providing a second visual object having the second visual pattern corresponding to at least one characteristic of the first sound pattern of the test sound.
22. A storage medium storing computer-readable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform at least one operation, and wherein the at least one operation comprises:
providing a test sound having a first sound pattern for at least one characteristic of a sound;
based on a user input that is input through a user interface for receiving a visual pattern, providing, through the user interface, a first visual object having a first visual pattern corresponding to the user input, wherein a first sound, which is substantially synchronized with a detection time point of the user input and has at least one characteristic identified based on the position of the user input defined in the user interface, is provided; and
based on identifying an event for providing a second visual pattern corresponding to the test sound, providing a second visual object having the second visual pattern corresponding to at least one characteristic of the first sound pattern of the test sound.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor“, “electronic device“, “user input”, “user interface”, “storage medium” and “server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a therapist providing the user with sound stimulus and receiving user input based on the sound stimulus. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people or perform in the human mind, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “ processor“, “electronic device“, “user input”, “user interface”, “storage medium” and “server”.
The “ processor“, “electronic device“, “user input”, “user interface”, “storage medium” and “server” in the aforementioned steps 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, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] 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 element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 84 and 86).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-19 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). For examples, claims 2-5 provides a response to the user’s input (abstract idea); claim 6-11 are directed either the result comparison (abstract idea) or the type objects being shown in the user interface (technological environment); claim 12-19 are directed to the objects being shown in the user interface or the type of sound being presented to the user (technological environment). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
No prior art rejections are proffered in this rejection. The examiner identifies these document as pertinent but does not rise to the standard needed to provide a prior art based rejection:
Delson US 20200394058
While the Delson reference provides a teaching of a test sound having a sound pattern for at least one charecristic of a sound (see paragraph 16) and providing user interface and having visual object (see paragraph 104). However, it fails to provide a teaching of “first visual object having a first visual pattern corresponding to the user input, wherein a first sound, which is substantially synchronized with a detection time point of the user input and has at least one characteristic identified based on the position of the user input defined in the user interface, is provided; and based on identifying an event for providing a second visual pattern corresponding to the test sound, providing a second visual object having the second visual pattern corresponding to at least one characteristic of the first sound pattern of the test sound“.
Von Kraus US 20160135719 A1
The Von Kraus reference while provides a teaching some of the concepts mentioned in the specification. It fails to provide a teaching of “first visual object having a first visual pattern corresponding to the user input, wherein a first sound, which is substantially synchronized with a detection time point of the user input and has at least one characteristic identified based on the position of the user input defined in the user interface, is provided; and based on identifying an event for providing a second visual pattern corresponding to the test sound, providing a second visual object having the second visual pattern corresponding to at least one characteristic of the first sound pattern of the test sound“.
Conclusion
ny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
