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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments received 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-8 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1, 8, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LATHROP et al. (US 20190051276 A1) in view of KAFUKU et al. (US 20190164529 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 16, LATHROP discloses a method performed by one or more processors in an information processing device for an electronic musical instrument and a device for practicing the method, including a computer program for implementing the method (Abstract; para. 0017, 0046-0047, 0057), the method comprising, via the one or more processors: receiving performance data (para. 0042: “… a segment of music …”) generated by a user performance (para. 0057: “A “note” can be either a musical tone such as a note played by an instrument or sung by a human voice, …”) of the electronic musical instrument (para. 0110, 0112; note: live music performances commonly refer to events where musicians perform on vocals or instruments directly for an audience, fostering a shared, real-time experience); extracting time-series (para. 0058: “The term “time series of groups of notes” refers to a musical phrase, two or more musical phrases in succession”) characteristics of a sequence of notes from the performance data (para. 0249: e.g., streaming input) each time the performance data is received (para. 0128: “ … new notes are identified in each new TSX, i.e., new relative to the previous TSX, and each LIV is updated as illustrated in FIG. 5”; see also para. 0043, 0057-0058, 0066, 0071-0074, 0191: “The PAFs for the entire musical piece are sequentially loaded, in real time, into a PAF sequence buffer”); detecting a performance technique from the extracted characteristics (para. 0068, 0073, 0075, 0088, 0107, 0186); generating a first image data (e.g., the visual cues mapped from any of the audio cues) including character data (para. 0107) reflecting the detected performance technique and outputting the generated first image data in real time (see discussion of streaming input for receiving LIVE performance data in real-time) during the user performance (para. 0017: “… provides images on a visual display synchronized to music”) each time the performance data is received (para. 0017, 0088, 0186, 0249, 0263-0269); and if the user has finish performing, generating and outputting a second image data (para. 0194: “updating the visual cues in previous TSXs on the display (see also FIG. 10)”) reflecting one or more of the detected performance technique or techniques that have been detected during the user performance (para. 0058: “The term “time series of groups of notes” refers to … or to the entirety of a musical piece”; para. 0074: “Characteristics of a time series of one or more groups of notes, including … an entire musical piece: Overall volume and dynamics; chord progression; affect (i.e., somber, cheerful, grand, and the like); tension (involving distance from tonic and motion relative to tonic); and ambience …”; para. 0191: “The result of the calculations and determinations of stage 2 is a psychoacoustic attribute file that contains a full characterization of all psychoacoustic cues for the musical piece, in time order TSX by TSX. That is, each TSX segment has, at this point, an associated PAF. The PAFs for the entire musical piece are sequentially loaded, in real time, into a PAF sequence buffer”).
LATHROP does not mention explicitly: determining whether or not a predetermined time has elapsed without receiving the performance data; and if the predetermined time has elapsed without receiving the performance data, determining that the user has finish performing; wherein said second image data arranges, in a spiral shape, the first image data.
KAFUKU teaches: generating a first image data reflecting performance technique and outputting the generated first image data in real time (para. 0070; 0150); determining whether or not a predetermined time has elapsed without receiving the performance data, and if the predetermined time has elapsed without receiving the performance data, determining that the user has finish performing (para. 0063); and if the user has finish performing, generating and outputting a second image data (para. 0063, 0124); wherein said first image data including character data (para. 0073), and said second image data arranges, in a spiral shape, the first image data (para. 0126-0127, 0129).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KAFUKU’s technique of detecting an ending condition in the communication stream and outputting the 1st and 2nd images in preferred forms into the method/system of LATHROP to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would provide an information processing device with which the entire performance can be felt really visually. It is considered that the modification of LATHROP in view of KAFUKU is merely an intended use of a known technique. And the skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 15, LATHROP discloses the claimed invention (see discussion for claims 1, 8 and 16 above).
Regarding claim 19, LATHROP discloses: wherein the first image data represents a video image (para. 0194); and the second image data represents a still image (para. 0194: by inherency, when it comes to the end of a piece of music, the updating of the visual cues stops and the video image becomes a still image).
Regarding claim 20, LATHROP discloses: wherein the detecting the performance technique from the extracted characteristics includes referencing a prestored performance technique file that includes information on performance techniques that cannot be performed at the same time (para. 0068, 0073, 0075, 0088, 0107: “Each psychoacoustic cue is associated with an individual note or a group of notes at any one point in time or as a sequence”; para. 0186).
LATHROP does not mention explicitly said prestored performance technique file is a lookup table.
Examiner takes official notice that a lookup table for storing itemized data information is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such well-known technique into the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious. And the skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
6. Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LATHROP et al. in view of KAFUKU et al., further in view of Yanase (US 6235979 B1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU is silent on: detecting the performance technique from the performance data by determining that a glissando is played when a pitch difference in note sequence is less than a prescribed value, and time interval between notes is less than a prescribed threshold.
Yanase discloses a method performed by one or more processors in an information processing device for an electronic musical instrument and a device and computer program for implementing the method (Abstract; Fig. 9), the method comprising, via the one or more processors: receiving performance data generated by a user performance of the electronic musical instrument (see discussion of steps S2 and S3 in Fig. 12); extracting time-series characteristics of a sequence of notes from the performance data, and detecting a performance technique from the extracted characteristics (see discussion of step S4 in Fig. 12; see also Fig. 14 and related text); and generating an image data reflecting the detected performance technique and outputting the generated image data (see discussion of steps S12-S14 in Fig. 12). Yanase further discloses: detecting the performance technique from the performance data by determining that a glissando is played when a pitch difference in note sequence is less than a prescribed value, and time interval between notes is less than a prescribed threshold (col. 1, line 62 – col. 2, line 8; col. 6, line 22 – col. 9, line 13).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yanase’s teaching of glissando technique determination into LATHROP’s method/system of detecting performance technique to achieve the claimed invention. It is deemed that such a modification is an intended use of a known technique. The skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase is silent on: wherein the extracting the time-series characteristics includes extracting a velocity difference that is obtained by subtracting, from a velocity of a first note, a velocity of a second note that is played prior to the first note, and wherein the detecting the performance technique includes determining that a velocity standout (a notably higher or lower velocity than the rest of the notes in a musical passage) note is played when the extracted velocity difference is equal to or greater than a prescribed threshold.
Examiner takes official notice that a technique of determining a velocity standout (a notably higher or lower velocity than the rest of the notes in a musical passage) note from a sequence of notes of performance data, including extracting a velocity difference that is obtained by subtracting, from a velocity of a first note, a velocity of a second note that is played prior to the first note, and determining that a velocity standout (a notably higher or lower velocity than the rest of the notes in a musical passage) note is played when the extracted velocity difference is equal to or greater than a prescribed threshold, is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such well-known technique into the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious. And the skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 17, Yanase discloses: wherein the detecting the performance technique includes attempting to detect a plurality of performance techniques (e.g., Grace note, Glissando, Arpeggio and Chord; see Figs. 14, 15 and related text);
storing data of various detected performance techniques in RAM (col. 10, 25-38).
The combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase is silent on: if plural performance techniques out of the plurality of performance techniques are detected, referring to a lookup table that specifies priorities among the plurality of performance techniques so as to select one of the detected plural performance techniques as said performance technique detected.
Examiner takes official notice that a technique of selecting one of a plurality of performance techniques as a performance technique by referring to a lookup table that specifies priorities among the plurality of performance techniques is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such well-known technique into the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious. And the skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 18, Yanase discloses or render obvious: wherein the plurality of performance techniques includes two or more of glissando, legato, trill, appoggiatura, turn, long note, staccato, velocity standout note, crescendo/decrescendo, syncopation, jump, and non-legato (col. 10, 25-38). As such, the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase renders the claimed invention obvious.
7. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LATHROP et al. in view of KAFUKU et al. and Yanase, further in view of Pachet (US 20020194984 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Yanase discloses: wherein the extracting the time-series characteristics includes, when a second note is played during a time in which a first note is being played, extracting a simultaneous sound generation period during which the first and second notes are simultaneously sound-produced (col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 4; col. 10, lines 15-24 and 39-59; col. 16, lines 31-67).
The combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase is silent on: wherein the detecting the performance technique includes determining that a legato is played when the extracted simultaneous sound generation period is less than a prescribed threshold.
Pachet teaches a technique of detecting a legato from a sequence of notes of performance data, comprising: determining that a legato is played when a simultaneous sound generation period in the sequence of notes is less than a prescribed threshold (para. 0059; see also the text of claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pachet’s technique of detecting a legato into the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase to arrive the claimed invention. It is considered that such a modification is an intended use of a known technique. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious. And the skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
8. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LATHROP et al. in view of KAFUKU et al. and Yanase, further in view of MATSUMOTO (WO 2018216423 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase is silent on: wherein the extracting the time-series characteristics includes, with respect to a first note a duration of which is equal to or less than a prescribed threshold, extracting a first simultaneous sound generation period that is a time period during which the first note and a second note, which is a note one before the first note, are simultaneously sound-produced, as well as a second simultaneous sound generation period that is a time period during which the second note and a third note, which is a note two before, are simultaneously sound-produced, and wherein the detecting the performance technique includes determining that a trill is played when the first sound generation period and the second sound generation period are both shorter than a prescribed threshold value and a pitch of the first note and a pitch of the third note are the same.
MATSUMOTO teaches a technique of detecting a trill from a sequence of notes of performance data, comprising: with respect to a first note a duration of which is equal to or less than a prescribed threshold, extracting a first simultaneous sound generation period that is a time period during which the first note and a second note, which is a note one before the first note, are simultaneously sound-produced, as well as a second simultaneous sound generation period that is a time period during which the second note and a third note, which is a note two before, are simultaneously sound-produced, and determining that a trill is played when the first sound generation period and the second sound generation period are both shorter than a prescribed threshold value and a pitch of the first note and a pitch of the third note are the same (see discussion of Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate MATSUMOTO’s technique of detecting a trill into the combination of LATHROP/KAFUKU/Yanase to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that such a modification is an intended use of a known technique. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious. And the skilled person in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights