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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 5, 2026. Claim 3 has been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2 and 4-10 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Objection to claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “said generation model” should be changed to “said generation model unit” for consistency
The term “the singing voice sound” should be changed to “the singing voice sound data” for consistency
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 includes the limitation “the duration of the consonant portion to be generated is adjusted to be longer relative to a duration of a vowel portion to be generated”. However applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not properly describe a relation between duration of consonant and duration of vowel. The specification only describes a vowel in paragraph [0066] of the published application, and is silent as to the duration of a consonant being longer than the duration of a vowel. It is unclear whether a consonant of only specific consonant-vowel combinations, specific syllables or words are able to be longer in duration than a vowel, or whether such an adjustment is dependent on a threshold duration of the vowel. Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
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 2 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.
Claim 2 includes the limitation “wherein the sound generation model unit outputs musical sound data or singing voice sound data”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sound generation module unit”. It is unclear whether applicant intends to reference the vocalization model unit, or introduce a new element into the claim. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “wherein the vocalization model unit outputs musical sound data or singing voice sound data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daido et al. (US 2021/0256960 A1) in view of Silverstein (US 2019/0237051 A1), further in view of Kayama et al. (US 7,124,084 B2).
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8: Daido et al. discloses an electronic musical instrument, an electronic musical instrument control method causing a processor of an electronic musical instrument to execute processing, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program for causing a processor of an electronic musical instrument to execute processing including a lyric output unit configured to output performance-time lyric data (page 1 paragraph [0019]) indicating lyrics represented as a series of phonemes during a performance and a pitch designation unit configured to output performance-time pitch data (series of pitches) (page 6 paragraph [0061]). The performance-time pitch data is designated in tune with an output of lyrics during the performance based on synthesis data (XC) (page 2 paragraph [0026]), and a performance style output unit outputs performance-time performance style data indicating a performance style during the performance (page 1 paragraph [0019]). A sound generation/vocalization model unit configured to, based on an acoustic model parameter (intermediate data Y) inferred by inputting the performance-time lyric data, the performance-time pitch data and the performance-time performance style data to a trained acoustic model (first well-trained model M1), to synthesize and output singing voice sound data corresponding to the performance-time lyric data, the performance-time pitch data and the performance-time performance style data during the performance (page 1 paragraph [0019], page 6 paragraph [0061]). This reference fails to disclose the performance style output unit to be configured to sequentially measure time intervals between time points at which pitches are designated during the performance, and to sequentially output performance tempo data indicating the sequentially measured time intervals, as the performance-time performance style data. This reference further fails to disclose the sound generation model unit to output musical sound data or singing voice sound data in which a duration of a consonant portion to be generated is adjusted according to the sequentially measured time intervals of the performance tempo data.
However Silverstein teaches an electronic musical instrument, an electronic musical instrument control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium where an output unit sequentially measures (analyzes) time intervals in real time on a time domain at which a pitch event is designated during a performance, and sequentially outputs musical experience descriptors indicating the sequentially measured time intervals (page 6 paragraph [0059]). The musical experience descriptors includes performance tempo data (page 4 paragraph [0040]).
Given the teachings of Silverstein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic musical instrument, an electronic musical instrument control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium disclosed in Daido et al. with providing the performance style output unit to be configured to sequentially measure time intervals between time points at which pitches are designated during the performance, and to sequentially output performance tempo data indicating the sequentially measured time intervals, as the performance-time performance style data. Doing so would allow a user to “adjust the tempo … of the music” in order to “edit the music that has been created” as taught in Silverstein (page 39 paragraph [0430]). These references fail to disclose the sound generation model unit to output musical sound data or singing voice sound data in which a duration of a consonant portion to be generated is adjusted according to the sequentially measured time intervals of the performance tempo data.
However Kayama et al. teaches an electronic musical instrument, an electronic musical instrument control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium where a sound generation model unit outputs singing voice sound data (singing voices) at starting time points in which a duration of a portion to be generated is adjusted (set as desired) according to the sequentially measured time intervals of performance tempo data (tempo clock signal TCL) (column 16 lines 6-14). Said portion to be generated is a consonant portion as shown in FIG. 13.
Given the teachings of Kayama et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic musical instrument, an electronic musical instrument control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium disclosed in Daido et al. as modified by Silverstein with providing the sound generation model unit to output singing voice sound data in which a duration of a consonant portion to be generated is adjusted according to the sequentially measured time intervals of the performance tempo data. Doing so would allow a “singing-starting point of the vowel of the present performance data [to] coincide with the actual singing-starting time point” as taught in Kayama et al. (column 23 lines 11-20) without requiring a silence length, and thereby “synthesizing natural singing voices close to human singing voices based on performance data being input in real time” (column 2 lines 3-7).
Claim 4: Daido et al. modified by Silverstein and Kayama et al. discloses an electronic musical instrument as state above, where the performance style output unit includes a changing means for allowing a user to intentionally change the performance tempo data obtained sequentially, as shown in Silverstein (page 39 paragraph [0430]).
Claim 9: Daido et al. modified by Silverstein and Kayama et al. discloses an electronic musical instrument where a duration of a consonant portion to be generated is adjusted according to the performance tempo data, as state above. The duration of the consonant portion to be generated then would be adjusted—either shorter or longer—relative to a duration of a vowel portion of the same sound data to be generated. Such adjustment can be made as the sequentially measured time intervals of the performance tempo data become longer, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daido et al. (US 2021/0256960 A1) in view of Silverstein (US 2019/0237051 A1) and Kayama et al. (US 7,124,084 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang et al. (US 9,830,896 B2).
Claim 10: Daido et al. modified by Silverstein and Kayama et al. discloses an electronic musical instrument where the performance style output unit outputs the performance tempo data, as state above. These references fail to disclose the performance tempo data to be based on a velocity value at a time at which an initial pitch is designated by a performance operation during the performance.
However Wang et al. teaches a performance tempo data (tempo sequence) to be based on an accent sequence, and therefore velocity value at a time at which an initial pitch is designated by a performance operation during a performance (column 14 lines 13-20).
Given the teachings of Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic musical instrument, an electronic musical instrument control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium disclosed in Daido et al. as modified by Silverstein and Kayama et al. with providing the performance tempo data to be based on a velocity value at a time at which an initial pitch is designated by a performance operation during the performance. Doing so would provide a more gradual tempo sequence during a performance by allowing performance tempo data to be predicted “through collectively considering a predetermined length of history and/or future of the sequence with respect to the present time point” as taught in Wang et al. (column 14 lines 24-28), and therefore require less tempo adjustment during performance.
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 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 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights