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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 17 and 20 include the limitation “determine for the phonemic input, a plurality of spoken pause lengths”. This limitation should be changed to state “determine for the phonemic representation of the input, a plurality of spoken pause lengths” for consistency
Claim 10 includes the limitation “one or more segments of each respective sentence”. This limitation should be changed to state “one or more segments of the respective sentence” for consistency
Claim 12 should end with a period. See MPEP § 608.01(m)
Claim 16 should begin with a capital letter. See MPEP § 608.01(m)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 16 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claim 10 line 2: “the size-based category”
Claim 16 line 2: “each third segment”
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 4, 6 and 8-16 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.
Claim 4 includes the limitation “emotional impact of the element, e.g., with respect to textual emphasis; and”. However the phrase “e.g., with respect to textual emphasis” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “emotional impact of the element; and”
Claim 6 includes the limitation “based on a respective length of each portion of the input”. However the claim previously describes one or more portions of the input. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the one or more portions of the input, or further limit the one or more portions of the input to multiple portions of the input. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “based on a respective length of said one or more portions of the input”.
Claim 8 includes the limitation “comprising categorizing each sentence into”. However the claims previously describes one or more sentences. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the one or more sentences, or further limit the one or more sentences to multiple sentences. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “comprising categorizing said one or more sentences into”
Claims 9-16 depend from at least claim 6 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 4, 6 and 8-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1, 17 and 20: Although the prior art (UA 2018/0268792 A1) teaches a method of transforming textual input to a musical score in real-time comprising: receiving an input including a text input (page 14 paragraph [0109]); modifying the input to generate a modified input by emphasizing a portion of the input having a high level of importance (page 8 paragraph [0067]); transliterating the modified input into a standardized phonemic representation of the input (page 5 paragraph [0050]); determining for the phonemic input, a plurality of spoken pause lengths (page 13 paragraph [0106]) and a plurality of lyric lengths (page 14 paragraph [0111]); the prior art does not teach nor suggest determining for the phonemic input a plurality of spoken phoneme lengths; mapping the plurality of spoken pause lengths to a respective plurality of sung pause lengths; mapping the plurality of spoken phoneme lengths to a respective plurality of sung phoneme lengths; generating, from the plurality of sung pause lengths and the plurality of sung phoneme lengths, a timed input; generating a plurality of matching metrics for each of a respective plurality of portions of the timed input against a plurality of melody segments; and generating a patterned musical message from the timed input and the plurality of melody segments based at least in part on the plurality of matching metrics. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 2-16, 18 and 19 depend from claims 1 or 17 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,049,492 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any limitation not described in the claims of the patent are disclosed in the specification.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15 and 24 of copending Application No. 17/329,119, claims 1, 15 and 24 of copending Application No. 18/112,218, claims 1, 19 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/272,175, and claims 1, 15 and 24 of copending Application No. 18/598,824. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any limitation not described in the claims of the patent are disclosed in the specification.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,124,084 B2, US 10,311,842 B2, US 2019/0362704 A1, US 2020/0051536 A1, US 2022/0223125 A1 pertaining to generating lyrics to a musical composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 21, 2026