DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Amendment filed: 07/13/2026. This action is made Final.
B. Claims 1,4-20 and 23-34 remain pending.
C. 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn due to amendment and remarks filed.
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) 1,4-20 and 23-34 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); a second library comprising one or more arrangements of source data files, each arrangement of the second library comprising information regarding a relationship between two or more 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; Figure 4; par. 283 teaches of “initial” audio 400 information and “initial” video information 410. In paragraph 284 audio information determined by many manners such as presenting a list (library of files); once selected determining relationship of selected file with first and second audio information. This is equivalent to having an initial file stored in a repository (library) that when interacted with the computer determines other information such as related data files for user/computer interaction/processing. Par. 283-287 discuss the information gathering steps of accessing a library of files for a user to select files (initial data set) that the user can then incorporate into the user interface of figure 5 to edit and create further new relationship derived from tracks and outputting a saved workspace of multiple tracks from multiple source data files from multiple libraries. Lastly the applicant argues that O’Dwyer does not arrive at an algorithm configured to compare a length of one or more source data files to be replaced to a length of one or more replacement files.).
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 select and initial arrangement of source files for from the second library (par. 437 example of appending additional audio from a different source than waveform and MIDI; par. 243 Alternatively, the event may be determined automatically, for example by having a computer system perform a search of the first audio information in accordance with search criteria which identifies a particular type of event).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; par. 241-243; fig. 4, 400-405).
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.
O’Dwyer teaches 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) and wherein the processing unit comprises an algorithm configured to compare a length of the one or more source data files to be replaced to a length of the one or more replacement source data files (par. 241-243 A schematic diagram indicative of this arrangement is shown in FIG. 2, in which second audio information 200, in the form of an audio waveform, is aligned with corresponding first audio information, in the form of midi data. Determined automatically, for example by having a computer system perform a search of the first audio information in accordance with search criteria which identifies a particular type of event. par. 393 changing and mixing audio tracks; par. 424 FIG. 17 illustrates MIDI time grid matching such as in FIG. 15 at the small scale and shows 1 bar of a waveform song appended with MIDI. Two ‘lengths’ of waveform song time are shown; x and y. Both x and y are 1/16's of a bar. Although both x and y are 1/16's in terms of the timing of the waveform song, they are not actually the same length of true time (I.e. one 1/16 of the waveform is slightly longer or shorter than the other). The appended MIDI must take this account, and exactly match the waveform song; therefore MIDI 1/16's x and y also do not equate to each other in length. This is to make up for variations in the waveform song at the bar/note event level.).
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 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).
As for claim 34, O’Dwyer teaches. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises an algorithm configured to apply a time-stretch function to at least a portion of the modified arrangement and to adjust a start time of each source data file within the time-stretched arrangement to maintain timing relationships between the source data files (par. 422- 424 In a retrofile, MIDI data is appended to the waveform song to match the time elements of the waveform song regardless of the placement of these events as to ‘true’ time. It must be the case that MIDI bar 21 (for example) starts at exactly the same moment as waveform song bar 21. Two bars of a particular waveform song may be of slightly different tempos and therefore play for slightly different amounts of time, however when appended with a MIDI time grid both bars are appended with 1 bar of MIDI time. An example of this is shown in FIG. 16, in which two waveforms 1600, 1610 are shown, each appended with 1/16 divisions 1620, 1630 representing one bar. FIG. 17 illustrates MIDI time grid matching such as in FIG. 15 at the small scale and shows 1 bar of a waveform song appended with MIDI. Two ‘lengths’ of waveform song time are shown; x and y. Both x and y are 1/16's of a bar. Although both x and y are 1/16's in terms of the timing of the waveform song, they are not actually the same length of true time (I.e. one 1/16 of the waveform is slightly longer or shorter than the other). The appended MIDI must take this account, and exactly match the waveform song; therefore MIDI 1/16's x and y also do not equate to each other in length. This is to make up for variations in the waveform song at the bar/note event level.).
(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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A1. Applicant argues that O’Dwyer does not teach “"an arrangement comprising information regarding a relationship between two or more source data files" and, further, "a second library comprising one or more arrangements of source data files, each arrangement of the second library comprising information regarding a relationship between two or more source data files"
R1. Examiner does not agree, the Applicant states that O’Dwyer nowhere
provides the user with pre-made, pre-arranged source data files that together constitute an initial arrangement of multiple sources. Examiner firstly states that initial arrangement is arbitrary within the claim limitations in that there does not narrow to files that were “pre-made, pre-arranged source data files that together constitute an initial arrangement of multiple sources”. The claim requires two information sources (libraries) that comprise of source data files (files). Figure 4; par. 283 teaches of “initial” audio 400 information and “initial” video information 410. In paragraph 284 audio information determined by many manners such as presenting a list (library of files); once selected determining relationship of selected file with first and second audio information. This is equivalent to having an initial file stored in a repository (library) that when interacted with the computer determines other information such as related data files for user/computer interaction/processing. Par. 283-287 discuss the information gathering steps of accessing a library of files for a user to select files (initial data set) that the user can then incorporate into the user interface of figure 5 to edit and create further new relationship derived from tracks and outputting a saved workspace of multiple tracks from multiple source data files from multiple libraries. Lastly the applicant argues that O’Dwyer does not arrive at an algorithm configured to compare a length of one or more source data files to be replaced to a length of one or more replacement files. Examiner would need clarification amendment because as of now the functionality of O’Dwyer inputting an audio file such as MP3 and replacing it with multiple tracks of MIDI audio files to replicate the initial audio file is sufficient with showing the same functionality; par. 241-242; the computer making the determination satisfies the “algorithm” limitation; so disclosed in par. 243 Alternatively, the event may be determined automatically, for example by having a computer system perform a search of the first audio information in accordance with search criteria which identifies a particular type of event.
Examiner recommends amendment that clarifies the functionality of the claim limitations.
[0241]
In one example, the first and second audio data can be provided as part of a single machine readable file in which the first and second audio information are arranged so that events in the first audio data align with corresponding events in the audio waveform. A schematic diagram indicative of this arrangement is shown in FIG. 2, in which second audio information 200, in the form of an audio waveform, is aligned with corresponding first audio information, in the form of midi data. This arrangement assists with additional editing or other audio manipulation techniques such as mixing, or the like, as well as generating video content, as will be described in more detail below.
[0242]
Thus, in one example, the machine readable file is in the form of a MIDI song score synchronously appended to a digital song waveform, such as an MP3, WMA encoded waveform or the like. In one example, the file includes place markers on the associated MIDI time grid marking out bars, beats, catch phrases, solo indications, or the like. Additionally, the MIDI data can include further parameter values associated with the audio content, such as volume, mix level, fade, equaliser settings, or any other audio effects. Such parameters may remain constant over time, others may vary throughout the song, and some may repeat over bars or groups of bars (such repetitions are commonly called parameter ‘sweeps’). The MIDI and other additional information can be used to provide additional functionality, such as to perform mixing or editing as will be described in more detail below.
[0283]
At step 400 the computer system determines first audio information, with second audio information being determined at step 405. This is typically achieved by having the computer system access a single computer readable file containing both the first and second audio information. In one example, the file can include the audio content as in MP3 or another similar format, with the file including additional meta-data representing the first information. The files may be generated in any suitable manner as described for example in more detail in co-pending application No. PCT/AU2008/000383.
[0285]
At step 410, video information is determined. Again this can be achieved in any one of a number of manners but typically involves having the computer system generate a list of available video content allowing the user to select respective content with this being used to access the corresponding video information.
[0286]
In one example, the video content would be in the form of a number of video content parts, such as edited video portions, that are intended to be combined in some manner. This could include, for example, editing video content parts recorded from different sources, such as multiple video camera positions, to provide a consolidated sequence of video footage. This is often used for situations such as sporting events, or the like. In this instance, it will be appreciated that the video content parts may be in different formats, and may require format conversion prior to editing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE 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 September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights