DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Transmittal of New Application filed 11/30/2022.
B. Claims 1-33 remains pending.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) 1-33 recite(s) “a first library comprising source data files…” “modify an initial arrangement of source data files…”, “produce a modified arrangement of source data files”, grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic graphical user interface and processing unit does not take the claim out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating a file in a computer environment. The claimed “processing unit and “graphical user interface” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools perform an existing file update process. Even considered in combination, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer with storage devices recited at a high level of generality is not a practical application of the abstract idea.The limitation viewing data files (data selections) on a generic user interface executed by a generic computer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “in response to receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to the significantly more than the judicial exception because as noted previously, graphical user interface and the processing devices individually and in combination merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of updating data files in a computer environment. The same applies here. (MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-33 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Dwyer, Sean Patrick (US Pub. 2012/0014673 A1), herein referred to as “O’Dwyer”.
As for claim 1, O’Dwyer teaches. A system for a user to edit an arrangement comprising information regarding a relationship between two or more source data files (par. 18-23 a processing system for determining audio part using first audio information and detecting audio content including audio events and editing using audio event), the system comprising: a processing unit (par. 18 processing system);
a first library comprising one or more source data files (par. 320 providing a display means of available audio content to user through the user interface); and a user interface comprising a display and a user input device (fig. 5 depicts the user interface comprising layers of audio tracks to mix and match audio content and events; par. 288,290); wherein the processing unit provides a graphical user interface on the display (fig. 5 is a the user interface displayed to the user); and wherein the processing unit is configured such that the user can modify an initial arrangement of source data files via the graphical user interface to produce a modified arrangement of source data files (par. 291 giving editing controls to the user to edit the video and audio digital files presented across the timeline by means of various layered tracks).
Note that O’Dwyer teaches a system for not only audio but video as well and the two can be interchangeable when mentioned throughout the disclosure.
As for claim 2, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a second library comprising one or more arrangements of source data files (par. 303 second audio information; alternatively two libraries of audio storage come from waveform software 1.19 and MIDI score 1.8 and additional audio data 1.10 from figure 10).
As for claim 3, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 2, wherein the initial arrangement is selected by the user from the second library (par. 437 example of appending additional audio from a different source than waveform and MIDI).
As for claim 4, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to produce an output file based on the modified arrangement of source data files (fig. 10, 1.17 output merged retro file type 1).
As for claim 5, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a streaming player configured to stream an output file to one or more users of the system (par. 314 sharing digital files between users).
As for claim 6, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 5, wherein the streaming player is configured to provide streaming of at least a portion of the output file prior to purchase of the output file (par. 675 service for purchaser of audio files; par. 726 user purchases a song in type 1 retro file format created).
As for claim 7, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 6, wherein the streaming player provides streaming of the output file at a limited bitrate and/or at another limited quality (par. 531 saved quality of audio created files; par. 17 providing a variable bit rate is a known practice to be included therein as suggested here).
As for claim 8, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the source data files comprise proprietary media (par. 458 copyright digital file).
As for claim 9, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 8, wherein the system is configured to track and manage a use, distribution, and/or sale of the proprietary media (par. 458 sale and transfer of digital copyright files).
As for claim 10, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 8, wherein the system is configured to provide a license to the user for a use of the proprietary media (par. 518 protection of copyright media)
As for claim 11, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises an algorithm configured to analyze information to be included in an output file, and wherein the algorithm is further configured to determine if a subset of the information should be removed from the output file (par. 717 removing parts of file by determination).
As for claim 12, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 11, wherein the algorithm analyzes audio and/or visual information within the output file, and wherein the algorithm removes explicit language and/or explicit images (par. 722 removal of specific tracks determined by user, which can be arbitrary for selection; par. 242 catch phrases).
As for claim 13, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises an algorithm configured to automatically generate the initial arrangement comprising two or more source data files (fig. 10, 1.8 file, 1.19 file , 1.9 file and 1.10 file to be merged into time grid).
As for claim 14, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 13, wherein the algorithm is configured to generate the initial arrangement based on a set of rules (par. 242 parameter values associated with the audio content thereby based upon value acted upon settings for audio files inputted within user interface).
As for claim 15. O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 14, wherein the algorithm comprises a fall back set of rules configured to be implemented if no source data files satisfy criteria based on a current set of rules (par. 242 various rules/conditions can be met or not met and settings adjusted because of such).
As for claim 16, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 13, wherein the algorithm comprises a bias, and wherein the initial arrangement is generated based on the bias (par. 263 digital file has tempo information which can be bias for placement along with other audio event parts such as vocals, instruments and the like).
As for claim 17, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 16, wherein the bias comprises a bias toward producing an arrangement comprising a mix of source data files (par. 392 mixing music tracks).
As for claim 18, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 17, wherein the mix of source data files comprise a set of files comprising dissimilar types, forms, and/or representations of content of the files (par. 393 various mixing scenarios).
As for claim 19, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to display the initial arrangement of source data files in a grid format (fig. 10, 1.7 time grid and fig. 28 user interface).
As for claim 20, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 19, wherein the grid format comprises multiple cells, and wherein each cell represents a duration of time (fig. 28 user interface that features/depicts multiple cells).
As for claim 21, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to allow the user to select one or more source data files to be replaced within the initial arrangement (par. 393 changing and mixing audio tracks).
As for claim 22, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 21, further comprising an algorithm configured to compare a length of the original source data files to those of the replacement source data files (par. 393 changing and mixing audio tracks).
As for claim 23, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 22, wherein the algorithm alerts the user if the lengths of the original and replacement source data files differ beyond a threshold (par. 421 length bar denoting time on timeline within user interface to match threshold of other content for synchronization)
As for claim 24, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 21, further comprising an algorithm configured to automatically replace one or more of the source data files based on the availability of a license to the files (par., 539 Copyright issues can be completely avoided by using a proprietary time designation format (thereby not using MIDI if this causes any sort of copyright issue) and only providing alternative tracks. )
As for claim 25, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to allow the user to reorder one or more source data files within the initial arrangement (fig. 28 20.15, 20.17tracks can be reordered along the timeline).
As for claim 26, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 25, further comprising an algorithm that determines a placement of the reordered one or more source data files (par. 421 determining length of audio content based upon timeline, song, other user information).
As for claim 27, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 26, wherein the algorithm determines a placement based on a set of rules (par. 421 determining length of audio content based upon timeline, song, other user information).
As for claim 28, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 27, wherein the set of rules is based on a threshold of the amount of a first icon overlaps a second icon (par. 421 The process of appending a MIDI time grid also entails appending smaller time divisions such as 1/16's, 1/64's etc. Similarly to the case for MIDI bars appended to the waveform song it may be the case that appended smaller time divisions such as 1/16's are of differing lengths).
As for claim 29, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 28, wherein the threshold comprises at least 1%, at least 25%, or at least 50% overlap of the icons (fig. 28 overlap of tracks is dependent upon user and system making placement decisions wherein placement can be arbitrary along the timeline)
As for claim 30, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises an algorithm configured to adjust a duration of the initial arrangement by applying a time- stretch function to at least a portion of the initial arrangement (par. 421 The process of appending a MIDI time grid also entails appending smaller time divisions such as 1/16's, 1/64's etc. Similarly to the case for MIDI bars appended to the waveform song it may be the case that appended smaller time divisions such as 1/16's are of differing lengths).
As for claim 31, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 30, wherein the algorithm maintains a timing alignment between overlapping source data files while performing the time- stretch function (fig. 28 overlap of tracks is dependent upon user and system making placement decisions wherein placement can be arbitrary along the timeline).
As for claim 32, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 30, wherein the initial arrangement comprises two or more source data files that are overlapped, wherein a time-stretch function is performed on a single source data file, and wherein synchronization between the source data files becomes out of sync (par. 430 Append the MIDI score/sequence 1.8 of the original rendition to the appended MIDI time grid in synchronous fashion 1.7. A MIDI version of the waveform song 1.8 must be mapped onto the appended MIDI time grid 1.6).
As for claim 33, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to provide a license to perform an act based on an output file and/or to perform an act in a synchronized manner with an output file (par. 539 Copyright issues can be completely avoided by using a proprietary time designation format (thereby not using MIDI if this causes any sort of copyright issue) and only providing alternative tracks. Thus neither copyrighted waveform songs nor copyrighted musical score are used in any way).
(Note :) It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to at telephone number (571)270-1056.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 December 11, 2025