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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,4-6,8,11-13,15,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Vogel USPGP 20100236383).
Regarding Claims 1,8,15 Vogel discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving outputs from a plurality of models that are each informed by real-time data provided by one or more sensors 1 that are present in an aquaculture environment (fish tank, para. 0020);
generating an input for an algorithmic music composer 2 for algorithmically composing music that reflects multiple current conditions within the aquaculture environment, based at least on the received outputs 1 from the plurality of models; and
providing the input 1 to the algorithmic music composer 2 to algorithmically compose the music that reflects the multiple current conditions within the aquaculture environment.
Regarding Claims 4,11,18, Vogel discloses the input is generated in real-time.
Regarding Claims 5,12,19, Vogel discloses the input describes characteristics of sound (MIDI parameters, para. 0034).
Regarding Claims 6,13,20, Vogel discloses an input identifies one or more songs (“Jingle Bells,” para. 0041).
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.
Claim(s) 2,3,7,9,10,14,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Patitucci et al (USPGP 20190333487).
Regarding Claims 2,9,16, Vogel (applied here in a similar manner as to claims 1,8,15 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that generating the input comprises processing one or more features using a machine learning model.
Patitucci discloses a method for producing and streaming music that comprises generating the input comprises processing one or more features uses “machine learning … an artificial intelligence (AI) component” (para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the Vogel teachings with those of Patitucci so as to allow for more sophisticated music to be created as is known in the art to be desirable.
Regarding Claims 3,10,17, Patitucci discloses an indicator of one or more target users (paras. 0073, 0074).
Regarding Claims 7,14, the machine learning / artificial intelligence of Patitucci reads on evaluating a plurality of rules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at (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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837