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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0080], reference number 40 is used to designate a template, while in paragraph [0110], the template is designated with reference number 50, and reference number 40 designates a template database.
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 1-20 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The gaps in the steps lies in the omission of means by which the steps are performed. Such a lack of means will be discussed later in the 35 USC 101 rejection. For example, the steps are indefinite, given it is unclear from where the content blocks are selected, how such blocks are selected, how the style is determined, etc., and there is no tangible output, and no means for outputting the generated output file.
Further in claim 1, line 8, please clarify whether “an instrument content block” is part of the previously recited subset of instrument content blocks, part of the previously recited group of instrument content clocks, related to either, or completely separate.
Claims 2 and 3, please clarify if the harmonically compatible instrument content blocks are related to either the subset or group of instrument content blocks.
Further in claim 3, please clarify whether “a style selection” is related to the determined musical style.
Claim 4, line 2, recites an “or” statement, thereby making further limitations indefinite. For example, if the input file comprises a vocal performance or an instrument performance, how then can the input file be separated into both vocal and instrument content blocks. Further, how can the output file be generated based on combining the vocal and alternative instrument content blocks is only one of either the vocal or instrument performance is comprised in the input.
Further in claim 4, please clarify from where the input file is received and from where the alternative subset of instrument content blocks are received for replacement.
Still further, liens 4-5, please clarify whether “a subset of instrument content blocks” is related to the previously recited subset of instrument content blocks, and in line 8, please clarify which subset is being referenced.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the musical style of the audio input file" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, given there is no previous mention of a musical style for the input file, only the output file.
Further in claims in 5 and 6, please clarify whether this recited musical style is related to the output file.
Still further, in claims 5 and 6, last line please clarify which musical style is being referenced (style for input or output file).
Claim 8, line 2, please clarify from where the input file is received.
Claim 8, line 3, please clarify whether the “instrument content blocks” are related to any of the previously recited instrument content blocks (i.e. subset, group, etc.).
Claim 8, line 6, please clarify whether “a musical style” is in any way related to the musical style of the output file, and by what means said style is determined.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one or more instrument content blocks" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of one or more instrument content blocks, only content blocks, a subset and a group.
Claim 8, lines 8-9, please which determined musical style is being referenced.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the instrument performance in the audio output file" in 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of an instrument performance in the output file, only the input file.
Claim 12, please clarify from where or by what means the input file is received
Claim 15, please clarify whether “an audio output file” is the same as, related to or different from the previously recited audio output file.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the alternative key" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons as presented above for claims 1 and 4.
Claim limitation “means to mix” (claim 13), “means to enable” (claim 17), and the several instances of “means for” in claims 18 and 19 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because there is no specific means, element, configuration, device, etc. defined in the Specification to support the implementation of 35 USC 112(f) in these particular steps. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 recite selecting, determining and generating data. These limitations are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and includes no recitation of computer/processing components, or tangible output. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, even if the claim were to recite an additional element such as – using a processor to perform the above steps, the processor would be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of an element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite selecting, determining and generating data.
These limitations, as drafted, are instructions and an apparatus that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components and computer components. That is, other than reciting “means for”, or “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “means for” or “executed by one or more processor” language, “generating” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or constructing elements.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computer or processing circuitry. The computer and circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer or circuitry amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Kiely (US 2019/0287502).
In terms of claim 1, Kiely teaches a computer implemented method for generating an audio output file (see fig. 2, ref. 36) including steps of selecting a subset of instrument content blocks (see fig.4, "content block selection") from a group of instrument content blocks (see fig. 1) by determining a musical style for the audio output file (see par. [00156]: “defining the musical style"), in which the musical style is configured with a plurality of musical slots (see par. [0158]: "bar of the music", and par. [0133]) and each slot is associated with a predetermined musical rule (see par. [0156], [0157]: mood, style, tempo), using the predetermined musical rule for each slot to select a musical template from a plurality of musical templates for the slot (see par. [0133] : "Thus each bar of the harmonic chord map defines a linear time slot and each content block selected is assigned to a time slot of the harmonic chord map".), in which the selected musical template defines a chord progression of successive musical chords at a musical key and tempo (see fig. 1, "template with harmonic chord map" and par. [0131]: "blocks corresponding to a musical instrument 'PIANO P1' and having the determined harmonic key and tempo for the harmonic chord map are selected by the content block selection means. The content block selection means selects content blocks from a database or library of stored content blocks for a selected instrument, such that each content block selected matches the chord structure and tempo of the input file 'Song A'.") ,selecting for each slot an instrument content block that matches the chord progression defined by the selected musical template (see par. [00134]-[0136]), and generating the audio output file by combining the subset of instrument content blocks (see fig.2, ref. 36).
As for claim 3, Kiely teaches style selection by a user (see par. [0046]).
As for claim 4, Kiely teaches receiving audio input file, and replacing instrument content blocks by alternatives (see fig. 1, par. [0129]-[0132], par.[0135], [0138] and [0140]).
As for claim 10, Kiely teaches tags associated with content blocks (see fig. 6).
As for claim 11, Kiely teaches the ability to search a database (see par. [0131]).
As for claim 12, Kiely teaches the use of a vocal content block as claimed (see fig. 2).
As for claim 14, Kiely teaches swapping between instrument blocks (see par. [0141] and [0164]).
As for claim 15, Kiely teaches swapping in an instrument with an alternative key (see fig. 9).
As for claim 17, Kiely teaches changing audio paraments of the audio output file (see par. [0055]).
In terms of claims 18 and 19, and 20, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claims 1 and 4, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of system claims 18 and 19, and instruction claim 20, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus, and the method is inseparable from the instructions for implementing the method.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Rein et al. (US 2020/0090632).
In terms of claim 1, similar to Kiely, Rein et al. teaches a song structure having different sections determined based on a desired style, wherein each section includes some metadata to derive musical key, tempo and chord progression allowing the selection of an instrument content block (see fig. 1-5, and par. [0021], [0023]-[0036] and [0047]-[0050]).
As for claim 2, Rein et al. teaches random selection (se par. [0041]).
As for claim 4, Rein et al. teaches receiving audio input file, and replacing instrument content blocks by alternatives (see par. [0028]).
As for claims 5-8, Rein et al. teaches deriving musical style from vocal/instrument content blocks, with an alternative subset of instrument content blocks selected by a user (see par. [0028]).
As for claim 9, Rein et al. teaches determining musical style according to genre (see par. [0035]).
As for claim 13, Rein et al. teaches mixing audio with images, or multimedia content (see par. [0021]).
In terms of claims 18 and 19, and 20, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claims 1 and 4, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of system claims 18 and 19, and instruction claim 20, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus, and the method is inseparable from the instructions for implementing the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiely in view of that which is well-known in the art.
Kiely teaches segmenting/sectioning and the removal of unwanted sections (see par. [0029]). The removal of such sections can be considered silencing or muting them. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date that the removal could result in muting, or, given muting is a well-known capability in most musical devices in the art, applying a muting capability to Kiely in order to silence the unwanted sections, without fully removing them, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited, in particular, the US patent application publication to Kiely et al. (US 2014/0301573).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 01/23/2026