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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 2, reference number S210 is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification. The Specification makes mention of step 210 and steps 210-250 (see paragraphs [0029] and [0030]), but not S210.
In Figure 4, reference number S430 is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs [0089], [0090], [0093], [0096], [0099], [00100], [00101], [00105], [00107] and [00108], reference number 700 is used in reference to an electronic device, while in paragraphs [0096], [0098], [00102]-[00104] and [00107], reference number 700 refers to a terminal. Please provide consistency between referenced element terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 8-10 and 12-20 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.
In terms of claim 1, please clarify if the main vocal audio is related to the main vocal audio signal.
As for claim 3, please clarify how the first and second delay relate to the determined delay, given both the determined delay and the deference between the first and second delay influence aligning of the chorus audio signal.
As for claim 4, Examiner believes “performing a smoothing processing” should be - - performing a smoothing process - - .
Further in claim 4, please clarify to what the “overlap” corresponds (i.e. overlap between what elements?)
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the adjusted chorus audio signal" in the last lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given only the adjustment of a playing time of the chorus audio signal is previously mentioned, and not the adjustment of the chorus audio signal itself.
In claim 8, “determining the delay between the chorus audio signal and the clean main vocal” is recited, however the only determined delay in preceding claim 7 is that determined between the main vocal audio signal and the chorus audio signal, and not the clean main vocal audio signal. Therefore, the recitation of “the delay between the chorus audio signal and the clean main vocal” is indefinite and lacks antecedent basis.
As for claim 9, similar to claim 3, please clarify how the third and fourth delay relate to the determined delay.
Further, the recitation of a third and fourth delay is indefinite, given there is no mention of a first or second delay in preceding claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above in claim 4.
Claims 12, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above in claims 1, 3, 4 and 8.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reason as claims 3 and 9, wherein there is no first or second delay recited in preceding claims 12 and 18 to correlate with the recited third and fourth delay, and please clarify if there is any relation between the third and fourth delay and the first and second delay.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations of the claims outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 recite converting, determining, aligning, performing and mixing data and elements. These limitations of are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and includes no the recitation of computer/processing components, or a tangible functional output. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, even if the claim were to recite an additional element such as – using a processor to perform the above steps, the processor would be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of an element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite converting, determining, aligning, performing and mixing data and elements.
These limitations, as drafted, are instructions and an apparatus that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at least one processor” language, “converting” and “determining” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or constructing elements. Further, the device produces no tangible output.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computer or processing circuitry. The computer and circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer or circuitry amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chinese publication to Liu et al. (CN 112489611 A) (English Translation provided by the Examiner) in view of the US patent to Ayrapetian et al. (9,997,151).
In terms of claim 1, Liu et al. teaches a method for chorus mixing, comprising: a chorus audio signal comprising main vocal audio played by a speaker (see paragraph 32, starting “the client 20…”; paragraph 44, right before the paragraph starting with “S103”; claim 7, "In the case that both the first account and the second account are in the microphone status, if the first account is switched to the microphone status, the first client terminal collects the first dry audio and stores it locally The accompaniment audio and the first dry audio are mixed into a first synthesized audio to be sent to the second client, and the second client stops playing the locally stored accompaniment audio and starts to play the first synthesized audio"; Figure 2 S103, " ... , when the first account and the second account are matched to the same virtual room, the first account and the second account can realize real-time segmented chorus in the virtual room, that is, a duet mode, where, the first account corresponds to the first audio content, and the second account corresponds to the second audio content. When singing in the first account, the accompaniment audio played by the first client is the first audio content stored locally, and the audio played by the second client is the first audio content stored by the first client and the first dry audio collected." ); determining a delay between the main vocal audio signal and the chorus audio signal (see claim 4, "The server splices all the target audio into synthesized audio based on the time stamp of each received target audio tag; wherein, the target audio includes the first target audio and the first target audio sent by the first client. The second target audio sent by the second client"); aligning the chorus audio signal with the main vocal audio signal based on the determined delay (see claim 4, "When the time length of the spliced synthesized audio is equal to the target time length, the server sends the synthesized audio to the third client corresponding to the third account in the virtual room, so that the third client follows the synthesized audio is played in a normal playback mode; wherein the target time length is determined based on a first delay and a second delay, the first delay is the delay between the first client and the server, and the first The second delay is the delay between the second client and the server, and the target time length at least ensures that the server sends the chorus audio uninterruptedly." ); performing an echo cancellation on the aligned chorus audio signal (see claim 5, "The first client collects audio, and performs echo processing on the audio to obtain the first dry audio"; §44 ); and mixing audio of the main vocal audio signal and the echo-canceled chorus audio signal ( see Summary of the Invention section, "the online song room implementation method ... takes into account the loop delay between the first client and the second client, and realizes the first account when the first account and the second account perform real-time duet. ... The accompaniment audio played by the first client and the second client are aligned with the dry audio, and the seamless playback of the audio of the first client and the second client is realized at the same time". "Seamless playback at the same time" is considered same as "mixing". "Duet mode", where both melody lines are different but harmonious, is considered as comprising in-chorus singing, where both melody lines are the same. ).
Liu et al. fails however to explicitly teach converting a main vocal audio signal and a chorus audio signal into signals in frequency domain, respectively, based on a frequency-domain signal of the main vocal audio signal and a frequency-domain signal of the main vocal audio played by the speaker included in a frequency-domain signal of the chorus audio signal.
Such limitations allow for the ability to take account of the non-homogeneity of music in various frequency bands.
Ayrapetian et al. defines echo cancellation in an online singing karaoke system, which is known in the art to be more efficiently performed in the frequency domain; and teaches a method using echo cancellation as claimed which has already been employed in the frequency domain (see Figure 1, using short term Fourier transforms STFT, for the same purpose in a similar karaoke system, see paragraph "background").
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, given the same result is to be achieved, to apply these features known in the art (echo cancellation) and presented by Ayrapetian et al., with corresponding effect, to the method according to Liu et al.
As for claim 2, Ayrapetian et al. further teaches wherein said determining the delay comprises: determining a number of relative offset frames between the frequency domain signal of the main vocal audio played by the speaker included in the frequency-domain signal of the chorus audio signal and the frequency-domain signal of the main vocal audio signal; and determining the delay based on the number of relative offset frames (to measure a delay in terms of audio frames is common practice in the field of digital audio signals; see column 8, lines 18-20, "For audio applications are based on frames, ... "; column 4, lines 31-32, "Applying such adaptation over time (i.e., over a series of samples" ... "A plurality of samples spanning a pre-determined interval of the selected (132) reference signal is stored (134) in a buffer 162" ...; column 7, lines 42-45, "Further, assume that the sampling frequency of the analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) of the microphone arrays is Fs. To define delay, samples of x and y should be collected for "T" seconds, as saved in the buffers 160 and 162”…). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claim 3, to adjust a parameter, such as delay, within a certain tolerance is a common step in audio signal processing. It is known that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) .
As for claim 4, Ayrapetian et al. further teaches said aligning the chorus audio signal with the main vocal audio signal based on the determined delay further comprises: performing a smoothing processing on an overlap and a break of the adjusted chorus audio signal (see column 2, lines 62-65, "In addition to clock mismatch, the quirks of signal reproduction by wireless speakers can be unpredictable. Such quirks include sample and/or packet drop and buffering within the wireless speaker 114 which creates variable delay. "; see column 6, lines 11-22, "To address these shortcomings of the conventional solutions, the acoustic echo cancellers 102a and 102b in FIG. 1 determine a delay . . . for each speaker 114 and adapt the filter coefficients of the adaptive filters to approximate the estimated transfer functions 171 122a and 172 122b to correct for the delays ... offsets between components based entirely on the transmitted and received audio signals (e.g., X 112, y 120)" ...; To adapt the filter coefficients is considered a smoothing; Interpreting a "quirk" of Ayrapetian et al. as a "break" of claim 4, to "adapt the filter coefficients" during a quirk condition of Ayrapetian et al. corresponds to the smoothing of claim 4 and represents a normal implementation in the method of Liu et al. that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
As for claim 5, Ayrapetian et al. teaches the use of a reference signal (12a/b) during echo cancellation . Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claim 6, Liu et al. teaches said mixing audio of the main vocal audio signal and the echo-cancelled chorus audio signal comprises: performing an amplitude control on the main vocal audio signal and the echo canceled chorus audio signal (see paragraphs preceding the paragraphs discussing FIG.6), wherein mixing audio in a duet mode is disclosed, such that mixing is known to be based on separate gains for each input ).
In terms of claim 7, Liu et al. (see references cited above with regards to the similar elements of claim 1) and Ayrapetian et al. teach a method comprising: obtaining a clean main vocal audio signal from a main vocal audio signal with accompaniment (music source separation is a well-known method for obtaining a reference vocal signal, while Ayrapetian et al. again teaches the use of a reference signal); detecting frequency information of the clean main vocal audio signal and frequency information of a chorus audio signal (pitch detection is a common signal processing method in music, while Ayrapetian et al. teaches frequency offset between signals, including the reference signal); determining a delay between the main vocal audio signal and the chorus audio signal (see references cited for Liu et al. above in claim 1) based on time series of the frequency information of the chorus audio signal and time series of frequency information of the clean main vocal audio signal (see Ayrapetian et al. column 3, lines 4-13 and column 7, lines 27-35); aligning the chorus audio signal with the main vocal audio signal based on the determined delay, and mixing audio of the main vocal audio signal and the aligned chorus audio signal (see references cited for Liu et al. above in claim 1).
As for claim 8, Ayrapetian et al. further teaches determining the delay comprises: determining the delay between the chorus audio signal and the clean main vocal audio signal based on correlation or a minimum difference value between the time series of the frequency information of the chorus audio signal and the time series of the frequency information of the clean main vocal audio signal (see delay correction algorithm, column 7, lines 50-65, making use of cross correlation, and Figure 2). Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claims 9-11, please see the discussion of claims 3, 4 and 6 above.
In terms of claim 12-20, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claims 1-9, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of apparatus claims 12-20, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 09/22/2025