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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19-25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jehan et al. (US 2017/0301372 A1) in view of Pretet et al. “SINGING VOICE SEPARATION: A STUDY ON TRAINING DATA” as discussed by applicants specification (page 11, line 22 - page 12, line 34); a copy of this teaching provided to the application file.
Re claim 19: Jehan et al. teaches a method for processing audio data, comprising:
providing an audio track of mixed input data (for example a movement/section of a longer musical composition, paragraph [0074] that includes track T1 and track T2, those portions required to form a song or portions of a given song), the mixed input data representing an audio signal comprising a plurality of different timbres (paragraphs [0065, 0080, 0083]) i.e. while a track is played (figure 3, block 204);
decomposing the mixed input data (musical composition into track portions) to obtain one or more playable decomposed audio signals (T1 and T2) wherein each playable audio signal contains at least one, but not all, of the plurality of different timbres (such as those timbers discussed in paragraph [0098]); and
analyzing at least one of the one or more playable decomposed data signals to determine a transition point or a song part junction between a first song part and a second song part within the audio track, (figure 3, blocks 206, 208, 210)
wherein the first song part and the second song part are selected from a verse, a chorus, a bridge, an intro or an outro of the same song (section part of a musical composition (paragraph [0074]). Note in Jehan et al. stored instructions are used to perform the method features, including the decomposing. Jehan et al., however, does not teach the decomposing is by using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) decomposition algorithm as now set forth by amendment. Applicant discloses in page 11, line 22 – page 12, line 34 of present specification that such a claimed algorithm is conventionally known to decompose a mixed audio data (Pretet et al. “SINGING VOICE SEPARATION: A STUDY ON TRAINING DATA, pages 506-510) to achieve a high level of quality and allowing for decomposing different timbers of a mixed audio signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the method of decomposing a signal using stored instructions as taught in Jehan et al. with another method of operation using a trained artificial intelligence decomposition algorithm as taught by Pretet et al. to predictably achieve a high level of quality, especially allowing for decomposing different timbers of a mixed audio signal. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 29: See paragraph [0150] of Jehan et al. concerning crossfade
Re claim 20: Jehan et al. teaches a method for processing audio data, comprising:
providing a set of three or more audio tracks (first track- fourth track; paragraph [0075])), wherein each audio track of the set of audio tracks corresponds to a different song (paragraph [0074] tracks, i.e. each track can be song or a section of a musical composition). Also note paragraph [0062] the media content items can include three or more (170A, 170B and 170Z) which are capable of being output by a playback device (such as device (102)); and each audio track of the set of audio tracks including includes mixed input data (such as a play list of tracks, paragraph [0075]); the mixed input data representing audio signals comprising a plurality of different timbres (such as those timbers discussed in paragraph [0098]);
decomposing each audio track of the set of audio tracks to obtain a decomposed track associated with the respective audio track, such as (T1 and T2) wherein the playable decomposed track represents an audio signal comprising at least one, but not all, of the plurality of different timbres of the respective audio track thereby obtaining a set of decomposed tracks, wherein each decomposed track of the set of decomposed tracks is associated with the same song as its respective audio track (paragraphs [0079] and [0098], obtaining track features (figure 5));
analyzing each of the one or more playable audio signals associated with the respective track decomposed track of the set of decomposed tracks to determine one or more track parameters of the respective audio track with which the decomposed track is associated (paragraph [0084] detecting transition points), (figure 3, blocks 206, 208, 210);
selecting or allowing a user to select at least one selected audio track out of the set of audio tracks, based on at least one of the one or more track parameters (figure 1, by use of user interface, paragraph [0048]); and
generating an output track based on the at least one selected audio track (that track (song or song portions or series of songs that is played back). Note also as amended the set of audio tracks is not limited to two tracks but include a set of three or more audio tracks (paragraphs [0035] and [0037], plurality of media content items; paragraph [0062] the media content items can include three or more (170A, 170B and 170Z) which are capable of being output by a playback device (such as device (102)).
Note in Jehan et al. stored instructions are used to perform the method features, including the decomposing. Jehan et al., however, does not teach the decomposing is by using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) decomposition algorithm as now set forth by amendment. Applicant discloses in page 11, line 22 – page 12, line 34 of present specification that such a claimed algorithm is conventionally known to decompose a mixed audio data (Pretet et al. “SINGING VOICE SEPARATION: A STUDY ON TRAINING DATA, pages 506-510) to achieve a high level of quality and allowing for decomposing different timbers of a mixed audio signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the method of decomposing a signal using stored instructions as taught in Jehan et al. with another method of operation using a trained artificial intelligence decomposition algorithm as taught by Pretet et al. to predictably achieve a high level of quality, especially allowing for decomposing different timbers of a mixed audio signal. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 21: the track parameter is taught by an acoustic feature of a track including timbre (paragraph [0080])
Re claim 22: see paragraph [0080]) teaching at least a beat and tempo satisfying the language “at least one of “as set forth.
Re claim 23: note that the arrangement includes a touch screen (paragraph [0048]) and a display panel (paragraph [0054]) used to in displaying media content/output (108) which includes viewable information to a user about the audio being played such as a displayed tempo.
Re claim 24: see use of a screen, paragraph [0048] and display panel, paragraph [0054] for graphically displaying information concerning an audio track and which also allows for a user selection via a user displayed interface (144)
Re claim 25: note the arrangement of Jehan et al. allows for the playing of a selected track made by the user via the user interface
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jehan et al. does not teach 1) decomposing audio tracks
by using a trained artificial intelligence decomposition algorithm as now set forth by the amendments to claims 19 and 20. Examiner agrees however applicant discloses in the application that such algorithms are conventionally known, see Pretet el al. to decomposed mixed audio. 2) to derive one or more playable decomposed audio signals and 3) analyzing the one or more playable decomposed audio signals to determine song part junctions and track parameters. Examiner does not agree. It is clear from the teaching in Jehan et al. that audio tracks (in the form of a group of songs or a sections of a musical composition) is/are decomposed into track portions (such as T1 and T2) are played (for example figure 3 block 204), along with paragraph [0078] and then analyzed to determine song part junctions and track parameters (figure 3, blocks 206, 208, 210) along with paragraph [0079]. Therefor contrary to applicants remarks the track features are playable audio tracks. Although Jehan et al. teaches as applicant argues the use of metadata, as indicated in paragraph [0080] alternatively acoustic features can be used. These acoustic features are obtained during the playback of a decomposed audio portions such as T1 and T2 of a song or musical composition.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 10/5/26
