DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 2, 5-8, and 10-22 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The IDS filed 3/19/2025 is considered.
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.
4. Claims 2, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore (US 2012/0221383 A1) and further in view of Taub et al. (US 2008/0188967 A1) and Gentile et al. (US 2011/0209224 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Shore discloses a method of creating an output file, the method comprising:
(1) providing a graphical user interface to a user, the graphical user interface comprising: a grid image comprising multiple cells, each cell representing a duration of time; and a selection area comprising multiple select icons, each select icon representing a source data file (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0047: placeholders in the form of a grid, where each placeholder represents a duration time corresponding to a clip included in the placeholder. Tiles of clips to add to the placeholders are provided in a bar);
(2) creating a grid layout with the graphical user interface, wherein the grid layout represents a correlation between a cumulative set of two or more individual selected source data files and one or more of the multiple cells (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0040 lines 5-13, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0048 lines 1-6: tiles corresponding to tracks (e.g. data files) are dragged to placeholders to create custom track, where the user can drag two or more tiles);
(3) generating a preview output of the output file based on the correlation (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0040 lines 5-13, and Paragraph 0048 lines 22-25: preview of custom track that is created based on the clips added to the grid), and wherein the generation of the preview output comprises (a) mastering the cumulative set of selected source data files (Paragraph 0040 lines 5-13 and Paragraph 0048: all selected clips are combined to create an audio track which is provided by the preview);
and (4) providing the generated preview output to the user (Paragraph 0040 lines 5-9 and Paragraph 0048 lines 22-25: preview in pop-up window or other preview screen).
While Shore teaches generating a preview output based on the correlation and further teaches the preview output correlates to an audio track (Paragraph 0040 lines 5-13), they fail to show the wherein the preview output correlates to a musical score comprising multiple beats of music, as recited in the claims. Taub teaches audio similar to that of Shore. In addition, Taub further teaches
correlating audio to a musical score comprising multiple beats of music (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0007, and Paragraph 0125 lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shore and Taub before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generating a preview output based on the correlation where the preview output correlates to an audio track taught by Shore to include the correlating audio to a musical score comprising multiple beats of music of Taub, in order to obtain wherein the preview output correlates to a musical score comprising multiple beats of music. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as automatically and accurately extracting score data from audio in order to convert he audio to an editable digital file, as suggested by Taub (Paragraph 0003, Paragraph 0005, and Paragraph 0006 lines 1-3).
While Shore teaches the individual selected source data files and the preview output and further teaches watermarks with respect to the source data files and created custom track (Paragraph 0032, Paragraph 0045, and Paragraph 0057 line 8), they fail to show the (b) dynamically placing an overlay generated from one or more audio overlay files for the preview output on one or more of the individual selected source data files according to an algorithm prior to or during the preview output, as recited in the claims. Gentile teaches data files and output similar to that of Shore. In addition, Gentile further teaches
dynamically placing an overlay generated from one or more audio overlay files on one or more data files according to an algorithm (Paragraph 0038: watermarking content with preconfigured audio that includes a half-volume message once per time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shore, Taub, and Gentile before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the individual selected source data files, the preview output, and watermarks with respect to the source data files and created custom track taught by Shore to include the dynamically placing an overlay generated from one or more audio overlay files on one or more data files according to an algorithm of Gentile, in order to obtain (b) dynamically placing an overlay generated from one or more audio overlay files for the preview output on one or more of the individual selected source data files according to an algorithm prior to or during the preview output. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination allowing for use of the application but obstructing the final product until proper payment is provided, as suggested by Gentile (Paragraph 0038). Further the combination would allow for use of the application but obstructing any available content available through the application until proper payment is provided.
In regard to claim 5, Shore discloses wherein the mastering of the cumulative set of selected source data files comprises a process selected from the group consisting of: summing, combining, manipulating, processing, mastering, equalizing, compressing, filtering, delaying, adding reverb, adding harmonic excitement, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0048: process of combining is described).
In regard to claim 6, Shore discloses wherein the mastering of the cumulative set of selected source data files is configured to be adjusted by the user (Paragraphs 0047 and 0048: user sets start and end times for each clip and appropriate start time to coincide with end time of previous clip. Therefore, the mastering (combining) is adjusted).
In regard to claim 7, Shore discloses wherein the mastering comprises a predefined mastering process (Paragraph 0048: mastering process of combining which can be considered predefined as this how the custom track is formed by the system).
In regard to claim 8, Shore discloses wherein the method is configured to prevent the user from saving the preview output (Paragraph 0048 lines 22-25: The preview is provided in a pop-up window or preview screen with no indication that a user can save the file or any indication that a preview file is provided to the user. Therefore, the user is prevented from saving the preview output because they are not given any ability to save the preview output. This is consistent with the present specification, see Par. 104, where saving is prevented by not providing the user with access to the file. Further, Shore provides an output for purchase and therefore if the user could save the preview output, they would have no reason to purchase the output. Therefore, one skilled in the art would recognize that the user is prevented from saving the preview output taught by Shore).
In regard to claim 10, Gentile further teaches removing the overlay upon purchase of the data file (Paragraph 0038 lines 15-18). Accordingly, the combination further teaches removing the overlay upon purchase of the output file. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination allowing for use of the application but obstructing the final product until proper payment is provided, as suggested by Gentile (Paragraph 0038). Further the combination would allow for use of the application but obstructing any available content available through the application until proper payment is provided.
In regard to claim 11, Shore discloses associating a source data file with a cell when the user drags and drops the associated icon into the cell (Paragraph 0044: drag tiles to placeholders).
In regard to claim 12, Shore discloses wherein the icon is configured to be dragged from the selection area to the cell (Paragraph 0044: tiles dragged from bar to placeholders).
In regard to claim 13, Shore discloses providing cost information related to the selected source data files and/or the output (Paragraph 0061 lines 1-8: cost determined for custom track).
In regard to claim 15, Shore discloses adjusting the cost information based on one or more of: a length associated with the output; one or more source data files included in the output; and a cost reduction associated with the user (Paragraph 0061 lines 1-8: cost based on length of created custom track).
In regard to claim 21, Shore discloses generating an output file based on the correlation (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0040 lines 5-13, Paragraph 0048 lines 26-29, and Paragraph 0059 lines 2-4: custom track is created based on the clips added to the grid).
In regard to claim 22, Gentile further teaches the placement of the overlay is configured to dissuade a user from copying the data file (Paragraph 0038: by adding the audio message one per time period a user is dissuaded from copying as it would include undesired audio e.g. the audio message).
5. Claims 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore (US 2012/0221383 A1), Taub et al. (US 2008/0188967 A1), Gentile et al. (US 2011/0209224 A1), and further in view of Iwata et al. (US 2001/0041050 A1).
In regard to claims 14 and 16, while Shore providing cost information related to the selected source data files and/or the output, they fail to show the dynamically adjusting the cost information as the content of the grid layout changes and displaying the cost information on a video monitor prior to purchase of the output by the user, as recited in the claims. Iwata teaches editing similar to that of Shore. In addition, Iwata further teaches
dynamically adjusting cost calculations as data is added and displaying the cost information on the editing interface (Fig. 4 element 206, Paragraph 0088, Paragraph 0130, and Paragraph 0181).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shore, Taub, Gentile, and Iwata before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shore to include the dynamically adjusting cost calculations as data is added and displaying the cost information on the editing interface of Iwata, in order to obtain dynamically adjusting the cost information as the content of the grid layout changes and displaying the cost information on a video monitor prior to purchase of the output by the user. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as allowing the user to visualize a cost of a final product while creating the final product, as suggested by Iwata (Paragraph 0009).
6. Claims 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore (US 2012/0221383 A1), Taub et al. (US 2008/0188967 A1), Gentile et al. (US 2011/0209224 A1), and further in view of Hamer (US 2014/0186004 A1).
In regard to claim 17, while Shore teaches the multiple cells, they fail to show the wherein each cell represents the same duration of time, as recited in the claims. Hamer teaches multiple cells similar to that of Shore. In addition, Hamer further teaches
each cell of a multiple of cells represent the same duration of time (Fig. 4, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0057, Paragraph 0061, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0080: GUI includes segments (e.g. cells) that are Y long where Y can be a constant interval such as 10 seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shore, Taub, Gentile, and Hamer before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multiple cells taught by Shore to include the each cell of a multiple of cells represent the same duration of time of Hamer, in order to obtain wherein each cell represents the same duration of time. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enabling the synchronized review and editing of video, as suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0002) and allow for a simple and powerful process to create, view, save, and share multiple edits, as further suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0080).
In regard to claim 18, while Shore teaches wherein the multiple cells comprise at least a first cell and a second cell (Fig. 5 elements 514 and 516), they fail to show the wherein the first cell comprises a first duration of time and the second cell comprises a second duration of time, and wherein the first and second durations of time are different, as recited in the claims. Hamer teaches multiple cells similar to that of Shore. In addition, Hamer further teaches
a first cell comprises a first duration of time and a second cell comprises a second duration of time, and wherein the first and second durations of time are different (Fig. 4, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0057, Paragraph 0061, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0080: GUI includes segments (e.g. cells) that are Y long where Y can be alternate synchronized values such as a repeating pattern of 10 seconds/5 seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shore, Taub, Gentile, and Hamer before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multiple cells comprise at least a first cell and a second cell taught by Shore to include the a first cell comprises a first duration of time and a second cell comprises a second duration of time, and wherein the first and second durations of time are different of Hamer, in order to obtain wherein the first cell comprises a first duration of time and the second cell comprises a second duration of time, and wherein the first and second durations of time are different. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enabling the synchronized review and editing of video, as suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0002) and allow for a simple and powerful process to create, view, save, and share multiple edits, as further suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0080).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, while Shore teaches the multiple cells, they fail to show the wherein the duration of time of each cell is adjustable and wherein the duration of time of one, two, or more cells of the multiple cells are adjustable, as recited in the claims. Hamer teaches multiple cells similar to that of Shore. In addition, Hamer further teaches
a duration of time of each cell and multiple cells are adjustable (Fig. 4, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0057, Paragraph 0061, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0080: GUI includes segments (e.g. cells) that are Y long where users can select different values for Y and where Y represents a duration in seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shore, Taub, Gentile, and Hamer before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multiple cells taught by Shore to include a duration of time of each cell and multiple cells are adjustable of Hamer, in order to obtain wherein the duration of time of each cell is adjustable and wherein the duration of time of one, two, or more cells of the multiple cells are adjustable. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enabling the synchronized review and editing of video, as suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0002), allow for a simple and powerful process to create, view, save, and share multiple edits, as further suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0080), and allowing the users to customize based on their needs, as further suggested by Hamer (Paragraph 0049).
Response to Arguments
7. The arguments filed 6/19/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It is argued that “Shore does not suggest correlating based on “a cumulative set of two or more individual selected source data files” for the purpose of generating a preview output, as claimed in amended independent claim 2”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shore teaches this subject matter in at least Fig. 5, Paragraph 0040, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0048 where a grid layout with multiple cells (Fig. 5 element 514-520) is illustrated and it is recited “…it will be understood by one skilled in the art that a user may create custom audio tracks from multiple sound recording devices. In a manner similar to that shown in FIGS. 5-8, a user may select a particular sound recording device from multiple sound recording devices placed strategically throughout the venue…” (Paragraph 0040), “In a preferred embodiment, a bar 502 across the top portion of the screen 500 previews tiles 504, 506, 508, 510, and 512 associated with a particular camera or camera angle… The tiles 504, 506, 508, 510, and 512 may be representative of a still image from the video track, may feature a preview video of the video track, or the like. … The user may then drag the tiles to placeholders 514, 516, 518, and 520 on the lower portion of the screen 500…” (Paragraph 0044) and “…The user then may continue by selecting another tile depicting another video clip from a different camera. The user then determines the appropriate start time to coincide with the end time of the previous edited video clip. Of course, the user may select additional video clips, tracks, or both to create a complete video…The custom track may be created from audio and/or video taken from multiple venues, can be created using multiple songs, or other similar combinations of artists, venues, and songs…The user therefore has total customization to assemble a custom track to include any audio and/or video from one or more performances. Once the video is completed, the user may preview the entire video, or portions thereof, in a pop-up window or other preview screen by pressing button 526” (Paragraph 0048). Shore is describing that multiple tiles, which represent video tracks (or alternatively audio tracks) (e.g. source data files), are dragged to the placeholders (e.g. creating grid layout that represents a correlation between a cumulative set of two or more of individually selected source data files and one or more of the multiple cells), which are then combined (e.g. mastered) into a custom track which can be previewed by the user (e.g. generating a preview output). Accordingly, Shore does suggest correlating based on a cumulative set of two or more individual selected source data files for the purpose of generating a preview output.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2173