The current application has been transferred to Examiner Fan Tsang.
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 § 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, “the mixing points of the percussion music track part” is confusing. The parent claim 3 recited “calculates mixing points of a vocal track part….and a percussion music part of the music”, but claim 4 further recited that “the calculated mixing points” are for the percussion music track part only. This leads to confusion as to whether the claimed “mixing points” are for “a vocal track part … and a percussion music part of the music” or only for the “percussion music part of the music”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bosch Vicente et al, US Patent 11475867 filed 12/27/2019 (herein after Bosch Vicente).
Regarding claim 1, Bosch Vicente teaches an apparatus/method of automatic mixing (The automatic song meshups (Figs.1 and 10) of Bosch Vicente fits the meaning of the claimed “mixing device”) comprising a music feature calculator (112a, 116a, 118b, 118a 110a, 114b, 114a in Fig.1), input music of music feature calculator comprising a plurality of tracks (112 and 110, Fig.1); the music feature calculator selecting vocal tracks (See column 8, lines 58-64 disclosed that multiple vocal tracks are selected) for calculating their tonality, (see 118(a) and 114(a) of Fig.1) besides calculating the other of features. It is noted that the claim recited two simple alternative selections, i.e. “selecting one or more of melody, bass, ..and vocal tracks”, and “selecting one or more features…” such that if the prior art selects one element listed in each claimed selection list, the prior art reads on the claimed list.
Regarding claim 2, see column 28, line 52, Intersection point of multiple tracks disclosed in step 2612 fig.26 for the claimed mixing point calculator (column 24, line 11 to column 29, line 67) .
Regarding claim 3, Bosch Vicente teaches that the mixing points are based on vocal track part (see column 24, line 29-67), a melody and bass track part (Using the harmonic change balance score as disclosed in column 21, line 14 and the beat/downbeat information disclosed in column 25, lines 9-67 for determining the mixing points reads on the claimed step of calculating the mixing point by using the melody and bass of the music. It is because the melody/bass and the harmonic/beat/downbeat are referring to the same characteristic of the music.) and a percussion music track part (see the instrument content, column 8, lines 50-56) of the music.
Regarding claim 10, the music input to the system at Fig.1 include melody (inherently in the vocal and instrumental tracks in Fig.1), vocal (118, Fig.1) and percussion music (118, Fig.1)
Regarding claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, it is noted that these six dependent claims further narrowing an element (beat point time calculation in claims 11, 12 and 13; melody/bass tracks for claim 14; and tempo calculation in claims 15 and 16 respectively) listed in the simple alternative list in their parent claim 1. Since Bosch Vicente clearly taught one of the claimed elements, i.e. tonality, recited in claim 1’s list; therefore, the reference still reads on claims 11-16.
Regarding claim 17, see Fig.1 116 and 118.
Regarding claim 18, see column 7, lines 8-19 the reference that identifies the verse and chorus of the music segments reads on the claimed musing structure feature based method for dividing music segments.
Regarding claim 19, see music segments on Fig.9a step 902 for the claimed phrases; and fig.2a and column 9, line 3 of eight bars which is two times of the claimed 4 bar.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch Vicente.
Regarding claim 4, Bosch Vicente teaches using the time-stretching ratio (column 25, line 58 and column 26, line 54) to determine whether or not to mix two segments; and the time-stretching ratio, which determined for each beat as a ratio between lengths of each of the beats of two tracks, reads on the claimed rhythm ratio because the claimed rhythm ratio is also comparing the beats of two audio segments/phrases. However, Bosch Vicente fails to teaches that if the time-stretching ratio is between 0.7 to 1.3, the two segments are mixable. On the other hand, one skilled in the art would realized that if the time-stretching ratio is equal to or close to 1, the beats/rhythm of two segments are very close to each other and are proper to be mixed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bosch Vicente to mix two segments when the time-stretching ration is equal to 1 for having smooth mixing of two segments.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch Vicente in view of Brosius et al. U.S. Pub No 2021/0241732 (hereinafter Brosius).
Regarding claim 5, Bosch Vicente teaches harmony comparison (column 2, line52) of the tracks and using chroma vector to obtain tonality information of the tracks (column 7, line 30) for creating auto mashups or auto mixing of music. What Bosch Vicente fails to disclose is using chord comparison for determining the mixing point of two tracks.
Brosius teaches chord comparison (fig.4 and para 67-68) of two music pieces for adjusting the notes of the first music piece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bosch Vicente to including the chord comparison as taught by Brosius when determining the mixing point such that a smooth mixing of two tracks can be received.
Regarding claim 8, Bosch Vicente also teaches the claimed feature of calculating the cosine similarity of the claim (see column 12, line 61-column 13, line19 and step 1504 of fig.15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jehan et al (US 10803118) disclosed a Transition between media content items.
Hoffman et al (US 20180315407) disclosed an Automatic Music Mixing.
Siciliano (US 9398390) disclosed a DJ Stem Systems and Method.
Reiss et al (US 9654869) disclosed a System and Method for autonomous multi-track audio processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fan Tsang whose telephone number is (571)272-7547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694