Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/966,771

REPRODUCTION CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL SYSTEM, AND PROGRAM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 14, 2022
Examiner
ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A
Art Unit
2659
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Yamaha Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 641 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
666
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 641 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed July 21, 2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12, and 17 have been amended. Claim 18 has been added. Claims 1-18 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 9, 2025 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0007147), hereinafter Anderson, in view of Honeycutt (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0265533). Anderson teaches performance analysis for combining remote audience responses. Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches reproduction control method implemented by a computer [fig. 1, 2A, 2B; para 0012-0013; 0060-0065], the reproduction control method comprising: receiving, from a first terminal device, a first reproduction request in accordance with an instruction from a first user [para 0021-0022 – viewer 12, 14, 16 devices provide responses or feedback]; receiving, from a second terminal device, a second reproduction request in accordance with an instruction from a second user[para 0021-0022 – viewer 12, 14, 16 devices provide responses or feedback]; acquiring a first acoustic signal representing a first sound in accordance with the first reproduction request, and a second acoustic signal representing a second sound in accordance with the second reproduction request, the second sound having acoustic characteristics that differ from acoustic characteristics of the first sound represented by the first acoustic signal [para 0021-0023 – viewer 12, 14, 16 devices provide responses or feedback; 0027-0029; 0030-0034; 0035; 0042-0045; 0049; 0051-0053]; mixing the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal, thereby generating a third acoustic signal [combined user responses -- fig 1 (24 – combining module); fig 2 (122); para 0017; 0022]; and causing a reproduction system to reproduce a third sound represented by the third acoustic signal [performance rendering -- para 0017; 0021-0023; 0027-0029; 0030-0034; 0035; 0042-0045; 0049; 0051-0053]. Anderson teaches the first reproduction includes a first character string specified by the first user [viewers 12, 14, 16…user input or feedback can be via keyboard -- para 0022; 0049]; the second reproduction includes a second character string specified by the second user [viewers 12, 14, 16….user input or feedback can be via keyboard -- para 0022; 0049]. Andersen fails to teach the reproduction request includes attributes of the user to include age or gender of the user. In a similar field of endeavor, Honeycutt teaches voice assignment for text-to-speech output where text can be obtained from various forms of communication that identifies metadata to generate a speaker profile to determine voice characteristics such as age, gender or dialect that is used to generate the speech from the text having voice characteristics of the speaker profile [para 0019; 0021; 0023] and teaches the system can provide more enjoyable and entertaining experiences for the listener [para 0004]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the text-to-speech with speaker profile characteristics techniques taught by Honeycutt, in the performance analysis system of Anderson, for the purpose of allowing a viewer that is an environment where providing audio feedback is not possible, to provide textual feedback responses to be generated into audio data that can be combined with audio input of other viewers, so to be combined and provided to the performer, thereby improving the viewer’s interaction and experience with the system. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson and Honeycutt teaches the acoustic characteristics of the first and second sounds include one or more of a pitch, a volume, a sound quality, frequency characteristics, reverberation characteristics, a temporal change of pitch, a sound image localization position, and a sound duration [para 0049]. Regarding claims 3-5 the combination of Anderson and Honeycutt teaches fails generating the first acoustic signal that represents voice corresponding to the first character string and the age or gender of the first user by applying the first character string to a speech synthesis process, and generating the second acoustic signal that represents voice corresponding to the second character string and he age or gender of the second user by applying the second character string to the speech synthesis process [Honeycutt at para 0019; 0021; 0023]. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson and Honeycutt teaches adjusting a first starting point of the first acoustic signal and a second starting point of the second acoustic signal within a specific period on a time axis, wherein in the mixing, the first acoustic signal for which the first starting point has been adjusted and the second acoustic signal for which the second starting point has been adjusted are mixed [mixing and synchronization para 0015-0017; 0020-0022; 0053; 0059]. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson and Honeycutt teaches the adjusting is performed such that the first starting point and the second starting point are distributed within the specific period [mixing and synchronization para 0015-0017; 0020-0022; 0053; 0059]. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Anderson and Honeycutt teaches setting the specific period in accordance with a volume of sounds collected in an acoustic space in which the reproduction system is installed [mixing and synchronization para 0015-0017; 0020-0022; 0053; 0059]. Regarding claims 9-17, the claims are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-8. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 18 is 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are not based on the new combination of references presented in the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00. 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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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. ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG Primary Examiner Art Unit 2659 /ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 14, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602547
DOMAIN ADAPTING GRAPH NETWORKS FOR VISUALLY RICH DOCUMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596879
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING CITATIONS WITHIN REGULATORY CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585892
AUTO-TRANSLATION OF CUSTOMIZED ASSISTANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12555491
Inclusive Intelligence for Digital Workplace
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12547843
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERALIZED ENTITY MATCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+9.5%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 641 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month