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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of amended application S/N 16/618,594 filed on April 13, 2026. Claims 1 to 5, 7, and 12 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The amendment filed on April 13, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The elements “descriptive metadata” and “structural metadata” newly incorporated in paragraph [0073] lines 1, 3, and 6 are new matter. These elements are not found in the disclosure as originally filed, nor the original claims, nor original drawings. After reviewing the sections of the specification cited by the Applicant as supporting the new matter, including paragraphs [0092], [0106], [0119], and Figures 5, 7, 8, 9, and 13B, support for the new matter was also not found.
For example, paragraph [0092] describes “From input stage 1310, 1312, or 1314, where computing device 1200 has identified the multimedia track, method 1300 may advance to stage 1316 where computing device 1200 may being metadata database processing 1316 prior to advancing to a method of song identification, determining bibliographical data associated with the identified track, and manipulating the interactive metadata selections all in stage 1318. The bibliographical data may comprise a plurality of parameters corresponding to the identified track. The data may be retrieved by server 110 from a plurality of music databases as disclosed with reference to FIG. 1. The plurality of parameters may include, for example, but not be limited to:” where subsequent paragraphs describe what the parameters may include, as follows:
“[0093] Producers associated with the multimedia track, [0094] Artists associated with the multimedia track, [0095] Albums associated with the multimedia track, [0096] Composers associated with the multimedia track, [0097] Engineers associated with the multimedia track, [0098] Mixers associated with the multimedia track, [0099] Mastering associated with the multimedia track, [0100] Recording Studios associated with the multimedia track, [0101] Musicians associated with the multimedia track, [0102] Record labels associated with the multimedia track, [0103] Timelines associated with the multimedia track, [0104] Samples associated with the multimedia track, and [0105] Interpolations associated with the multimedia track.” In other words, the data that is being retrieved from the database based on the metadata selection, is bibliographical data, which may comprise a plurality of parameters, and examples are listed in paragraphs [0093]-[0105]. That is, there is no distinction whatsoever between type of the parameters. The parameters are all bibliographical data.
Furthermore, Applicant argues in page 12 that “While Albalat may generate different playlists with different combinations of the selected parameters, (e.g., Albalat, [0028]), the Office fails to provide a reasoned basis for how a person of ordinary skill in the art or the combined teachings of the Tripoli with Albalat would overcome the fundamental divergence in data topology and computational execution between bibliographical data (e.g. timelines, publishing identifiers, or copyright identifiers), descriptive metadata (e.g., song title, artist name, album title, or genre), and structural metadata (e.g., sample lineage, multi-party song credits, or interpolation dependencies) associated with a multimedia track, as described herein”, which appears to characterize the parameters as different types of data or metadata, and which appears to indicate that they require different types of processing. There is no support for these elements in the original disclosure as filed. Based on the original disclosure, and the claims as originally filed, the parameters that are retrieved are bibliographical data, and there is no distinction between their “topology” or “computational execution”, that is, they are all a same type of data or metadata, and there is no divergence in topology or computational execution between them, as further demonstrated by paragraphs [0092] to [0105], which list as part of the parameters or bibliographical data, for example, artists, album, timelines, and interpolations associated with the tracks, without distinction of types between them. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever of topology, computational execution requirements, descriptive metadata, nor structural metadata, in the disclosure as originally filed.
Moreover, paragraph [0133] of the specification further describes “The method of any previous aspect, further comprising presenting a plurality of parameters associated with bibliographical data of the multimedia track; wherein the plurality of parameters comprise, but are not limited to, at least one of the following: Producers associated with the multimedia track, Artists associated with the multimedia track, Albums associated with the multimedia track, Composers associated with the multimedia track, Engineers associated with the multimedia track, Mixers associated with the multimedia track, Mastering associated with the multimedia track, Recording Studios associated with the multimedia track, Musicians associated with the multimedia track, Record labels associated with the multimedia track, Timelines associated with the multimedia track, Samples associated with the multimedia track, and Interpolations associated with the multimedia track.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 1, 5, and 7 recite the limitation “user facing apparatus”, and claim 1 recites the limitation “unique data structures”. The specification lacks antecedent basis for the claim terminology, and more specifically, for the terms “user facing apparatus” and “unique data structures”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 to 5, 7, and 12 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 to 5, 7, and 12 to 20 recite the limitations “descriptive metadata” and “structural metadata”. These elements are not described in the disclosure, as originally filed. As explained above, the specification describes “From input stage 1310, 1312, or 1314, where computing device 1200 has identified the multimedia track, method 1300 may advance to stage 1316 where computing device 1200 may being metadata database processing 1316 prior to advancing to a method of song identification, determining bibliographical data associated with the identified track, and manipulating the interactive metadata selections all in stage 1318. The bibliographical data may comprise a plurality of parameters corresponding to the identified track. The data may be retrieved by server 110 from a plurality of music databases as disclosed with reference to FIG. 1. The plurality of parameters may include, for example, but not be limited to:” (see paragraph [0092]) where subsequent paragraphs describe what the parameters may include, as follows:
“[0093] Producers associated with the multimedia track, [0094] Artists associated with the multimedia track, [0095] Albums associated with the multimedia track, [0096] Composers associated with the multimedia track, [0097] Engineers associated with the multimedia track, [0098] Mixers associated with the multimedia track, [0099] Mastering associated with the multimedia track, [0100] Recording Studios associated with the multimedia track, [0101] Musicians associated with the multimedia track, [0102] Record labels associated with the multimedia track, [0103] Timelines associated with the multimedia track, [0104] Samples associated with the multimedia track, and [0105] Interpolations associated with the multimedia track.” In other words, the data that is being retrieved from the database based on the metadata selection, is bibliographical data, which may comprise a plurality of parameters, and examples are listed in paragraphs [0093]-[0105]. That is, there is no distinction whatsoever between type of the parameters. The parameters are all bibliographical data. Therefore, the disclosure provides no support for the claimed elements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 to 5, 7, and 12 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the user facing apparatus” in line 9, “the various bibliographical data” in line 10, and “the individual” in lines 18 and 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 7, 12, 13, since they recite “the similar” element, and to claims 2 to 5, 7, and 12 to 20, since they inherit the same deficiencies, by virtue of their dependency.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to arguments filed on April 13, 2026. Arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “While Albalat may generate different playlists with different combinations of the selected parameters, (e.g., Albalat, [0028]), the Office fails to provide a reasoned basis for how a person of ordinary skill in the art or the combined teachings of the Tripoli with Albalat would overcome the fundamental divergence in data topology and computational execution between bibliographical data (e.g. timelines, publishing identifiers, or copyright identifiers), descriptive metadata (e.g., song title, artist name, album title, or genre), and structural metadata (e.g., sample lineage, multi-party song credits, or interpolation dependencies) associated with a multimedia track, as described herein”.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a fundamental divergence in data topology and computational execution between bibliographical data, descriptive metadata, and structural metadata”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, Examiner respectfully points out that the limitations also are not disclosed in the specification. It was not found in the disclosure as originally filed, the elements “descriptive metadata”, “structural metadata”, “publishing identifiers”, “copyright identifiers”, and “sample lineage”.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the claimed invention does not merely “combine” parameters; it quickly and efficiently implements a cross-schema normalization for the invention to manage semantic precision of tag-based structures for bibliographical data, executes a general search retrieval function with linear time complexity for descriptive metadata, and resolves a unique directed acyclic graph (DAG) of dependencies for structural metadata (see [0092], [0106], [0119], FIG 5, FIG 7, FIG 8, and FIG 9)”.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “quickly and efficiently implements a cross-schema normalization for the invention to manage semantic precision of tag-based structures for bibliographical data, executes a general search retrieval function with linear time complexity for descriptive metadata, and resolves a unique directed acyclic graph (DAG) of dependencies for structural metadata”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, Examiner respectfully points out that the paragraphs of the specification cited as providing support for the limitations do not disclose the argued elements, nor does the rest of the disclosure, therefore, although the argued limitations are not required by the claims, as presently presented, the disclosure provides no support for such limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights