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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: . 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.
Claims 1-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for , does not reasonably provide enablement for . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. .
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 1-36 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 13, 25 recite converting a sample, samples, to “a base64 string, the base64 string being part of a JUCE library code…” As a preliminary matter the reliance on a proffered framework from an additional party must be considered indefinite as the framework may be changed, amended, updated or obviated by the additional party. Additionally in a broadly reasonable interpretation of the claim language the framework as relied on the first data sample is converted to a string and the string must be a part of the library code. Claim 12, 24, 36 additionally rejected as the claimed 65k byte chunks are recited as comprising “1/20th of the original size,” however the original size lacks clear antecedent and renders the claims indefinite. Claims 2-12, 14-25, 26-36 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Additionally claims 6, 18, 30 recite music sessions which are created “synchronously and asynchronously either when the first user is alone or in remote or close location with the plurality of second users,” thus the claimed subject matter mandates that music sessions must be created synchronously and asynchronously and that the creating must occur based on the first user being alone or located proximally or remotely with respect to a second user, group thereof. This is considered to cover substantially every conditional relation of first and second users and renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, is/are directed to a system, method, etc. for loading, converting and transmitting data. The claims rely on well understood, routine, and conventional structures such as a processor, memory, data structure, etc. to instruct the system along methods by which data, samples thereof, etc. is loaded into a computing environment, converted into a separate parsing of data, compressed and transmitted along a network such as through a server to a client for storage in memory. The claims are considered a manner by which data resolves more data, in this case a conversion of data samples for transmission over and network and storage upon a second client computer. As such the claims cannot be considered to integrate the judicial exceptions of an abstract idea such as data per se or programs per se as the claims do not include substantially more than the performance of such exceptions upon a computer claimed at a high level of generality. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected as the claims further address additional subject matter which may be seen as the generation of data from data; such as based in human behavior.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carot: Netjack – Remote music collaboration with electronic sequencers on the Internet,” (copy provided by Examiner; available at least 2009; and hereinafter Carot); further in view of Juce framework documentation (cited portions provided by Examiner and as downloaded from Archive.org; based on documentation available at least May 2020; and hereinafter Juce); and further in view of Kubista: 6721798 hereinafter Kub and further in view of SonoBus (copy provided by Examiner and as downloaded from Archive.org; based on documentation available at least November 2020; and hereinafter Sono and additionally Sono_1).
Regarding claim 1
Carot teaches:
A method for connecting a plurality of remotely located users over a shared environment, the method comprising:
a) loading, by a first user, a first data sample to a shared sequencer (Carot: § 4, 4.1, 5: netjack system operates upon a jack client to synchronize sequencers upon a first and second computer, soundcard thereof, said computers remote one from the other, by reading blocks of samples loaded into a soundcard on the first computer, packetizing, and forwarding said samples as UDP packages to the jack server upon a second computer which addresses a studio output soundcard and vice versa);
c) converting the first data sample to a compressed data sample (Carot: § 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: such as by conversion to a lossy codec such as the CELT codec;
d) generating a plurality of messages having therein a portion of metadata (Carot: § 4: read samples packetized as outgoing messages with accompanying timestamp metadata packet portion);
e) prioritizing the messages from low priority to high priority and queuing the prioritized messages for sorting (Carot: § 4: timestamp metadata comprises a prioritization by which packets are queued, sorted, etc. for output); and
f) sending the sorted messages to a server, the server having a defined studio identification (Carot: Abstract; § 3, 4.1, 5: , the server routing the sorted messages to the studio for caching, the cached messages being added to one or more of the remotely located second users' message queues such that samples buffered upon the input soundcard at the client studio are received upon the server and buffered for output from the output soundcard at the studio associated with the server).
Carot does not explicitly teach the system operable for:
b) converting the first data sample to a base64 string, the base64 string being part of a JUCE library code ;
c) converting the converted first data sample to a compressed data sample;
d) generating a plurality of messages by splitting the compressed data sample into 65k byte chunks having therein a portion of metadata;
In a related field of endeavor JUCE teaches a framework, such as for creation of audio processing, streaming, etc. applications and plug-ins for digital audio sequencers, workstations, etc.; comprising a library of codes such as for converting a data sample, sequence thereof into a base 64 string, sequence (Juce: Class Index, Network, AudioSource, AudioSourceChannel; Base64: system operates to input audio samples such as from an audio source, process same) thereof thereby b) converting the first data sample to a base64 string, the base64 string being part of a JUCE library code (Juce: Base64 Struct Reference: system receives a block, blocks, etc. of binary audio data such as from an audio source buffer, audio source, etc. and converts the input to a base64 string and outputs a stream of base64 data thereby);
c) converting the converted first data sample to a compressed data sample (Juce: AudioSource, AudioSourceChannel; Base64; MP3AudioFormat; FlacAudioFormat: such as by employ of a lossy codec supported by Juce to receive the base64 string and output a compressed data sample in a Juce such as upon an MP3, Flac type format operating with compression); thereby
d) generating a plurality of messages by splitting the compressed data sample into chunks having therein a portion of metadata (Juce: id, and BufferingAudioSource, BufferedInputStream, StreamingSocket, DatagramSocket, etc.: such as by using a buffered input stream to optimize read access by managing chunkwise access to the stream such as upon a streaming socket and/or datagram socket to generate TCP, and/or UDP, messages, frames, etc. for output). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a framework, such as that provided by Juce to create a shared user environment over a network as taught or suggested by Carot for at least the purpose of enabling access to a shared streaming system for a plurality of users by the creation of generic VST type plugins for the streaming of audio among users, such as audio engineers, musicians, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Carot in view of Juce does not explicitly teach chunking into 65k byte chunks, however this was a well known aspect of transmitting of packets across a network as communication protocols such as UDP and TCP employ a maximum size of 65k bytes to manage network traffic. As evidence consider Kub which teaches that an IP datagram such as employed over TCP/IP comprises a maximum 65000 byte size and comprises data and a metadata header (Kub: Col 2:6-2:20); (please see additionally Lu: 20180247550: synchronous media system wherein a UDP protocol limits packets to a 65K size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to conform to the well known 65k byte ceiling for network utilization of TCP/IP, and/or UDP packets as taught or suggested by Kub within the Carot in view of Juce system and method for at least the purpose of optimizing substantial synchrony among disparate network devices by managing packet sizes; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
While Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub is considered to teach, suggest, etc. the subject matter as claimed however it may be that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited sequencer requires a DAW and/or a plug-in type implementation within a DAW (please see ¶ 64 of the instant PGPub: 20230410847—”Broadly speaking, the first computing device can be considered a DAW within a DAW, primarily because the sequencer is part of the device.”) and accessible to a plurality of users therewith.
In a related field of endeavor Sono teaches a system and method for operating a networked DAW to connect a plurality of remotely located users over a shared environment (Sono_2: system as pictured operates as a DAW, or as a plug-in with a DAW such as a VST plug in, to connect multiple people to make music, conduct a networked session, etc.) comprising:
a) loading, by a first user, a first data sample to a shared sequencer (Sono: Send Format and Quality: system chooses conversion rate to generate samples from an input); c) converting the first data sample to a compressed data sample (Sono_2; Features: “Audio quality can be instantly adjusted from full uncompressed PCM (16, 24, or 32 bit) or with various compressed bitrates (16-256 kbps per channel) using the low-latency Opus codec); d) generating a plurality of messages by splitting the compressed data sample (Sono: Introduction, Send Format and Quality: system sends an uncompressed, compressed, etc. input stream among participants in the session, such as using the depicted interface of Sono_2; and such as in response to a particular buffer filling dynamics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub to encompass the DAW and/or DAW hosted networking system taught or suggested by Sono for at least the purpose of allowing plural users to subscribe to a particular client or server similar to the Carot taught Jack client server system, and to thereby increase the possibilities of a networked music session; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Additionally Sono teaches that multi-user networked audio sessions of the sort claimed were well-known before the effective filing date of the instant application (please see additionally Sono: Appendix D and matter incorporated therein)
Regarding claim 2
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 1, further includes: at least one destination user sequentially receives portions of the 65k byte chunks, the chunks being reconstructed (Carot: § 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: server, studio associated therewith receives a sequence of UDP messages in a potentially disordered sequence, generates an ordered sequence for output based on attendant timestamp, etc. metadata). The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 2, in which: a) the destination user verifies sound sample rate by comparing the sound sample rate to a predefined sound card sample rate; and b) if required, correcting the sample rate (Carot: § 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: client, server in the system dynamically adapt to the respective soundcard rates, said soundcards operable at industry standard selectable rates); (Sono: Getting Started: users individually determine a preferred sample rate by selecting among predetermined and industry standard sample rates; system adapts disparate sample rates of the plural users by comparing and resampling if necessary, that is in the event of a mismatched comparison). The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 3, further includes: creating a temporary WAV file by dragging the reconstructed sample outside one or more Digital Audio Workstations (DAW)s.
Examiner takes official notice that user interface operations such as generating buffered files for creation of files upon a local machine, such as by dragging a file under operation outside of the bounds of the program application, such as for storage in a directory, on a desktop, etc. was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of conforming the system, method, etc. to well known aspects of GUI driven computer operations for saving a file or channel of a session by such a drag whereupon the file stored at the dragged to location is of a predetermine format and/or of a format of the original file, in such a way that any among well-known file formats, such as a WAV file may be selected or mandated; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 4, in which, in a network of the DAWs, creating tracks that are compatible by capturing audio output therefrom and converting sample rate (Carot: § 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: client, server in the system dynamically adapt to the respective soundcard rates, said soundcards operable at industry standard selectable rates); (Sono: Getting Started: users individually determine a preferred sample rate by selecting among predetermined and industry standard sample rates; system adapts disparate sample rates of the plural users by comparing and resampling if necessary, that is in the event of a mismatched comparison) and tempo (Juce: AudioPlayHead; Midifile; ARAMusicalContextListener: system tracks a tempo and adapts to changes of tempo; such as for tracking playback of audio.) The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 1, in which music sessions are created synchronously and asynchronously either when the first user is alone or in remote or close location with the plurality of second users. (Carot: § 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: plural users operating to create music alone or separately create music sessions asynchronously; Carot discusses a system method by which music sessions may be created in synchrony by users remote one from the other). The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 6, in which the users are musicians (Carot: § 1, 4, 6: system provides solutions for musicians working together over physical, temporal, etc. distances; a “musician” is considered a person with aptitude, ability, etc. with respect to the art, practice, performance, etc. of music; particularly composers, performers, etc. of music); (Juce: generally: usage of the Juce framework considered a display of aptitude or ability on the domain of music); (Sono_1: Multi-user, multi-platform, open source, completely free: “instantly connect multiple people together to make music, remote sessions, podcasts, etc.”). The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 1, in which the first user shares information and sounds for distribution to one or more second users in real time (Carot: § 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: users in the Carot system operate to share audio information comprising sounds, timestamps, etc. in real time through the utility of transmitting real time traffic on the internet); (Sono: Introduction: “allows multiple users at a distance to share audio together in real-time with the highest possible quality and lowest possible latency over the Internet.”). The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 1, in which the reconstructed sample is saved on a remote memory (Carot: § 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5: such as upon the system operating the server). The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 9, in which the remote memory is the cloud. Examiner takes official notice that mediation, storage, etc. upon a server, such as a cloud hosted server, was well known before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of experimenting with topologies by which session data could be hosted, backed up, processed, transmitted, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 1, in which up to five users are connected in real time (Sono: Connecting with Other Participants: Sono advises keeping the number small, a practical limit is estimated at least 5 or more participants, and projected as accommodating up to a dozen users. The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Carot in view of Juce in view of Kub in view of Sono teaches or suggests:
The method, according to claim 2, in which the 65k byte chunks includes about 1/20 of the original size. The recited range is considered obvious as a matter of design choice, such as for optimizing buffers such as those discussed by Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono. The claim is considered obvious over Carot as modified by Juce, Kub, and Sono as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Carot, Juce, Kub, and/or Sono to the modified device of Carot, Juce, Kub, and Sono; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13, 25—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 1 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, 26—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 2 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, 27—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 3 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, 28—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 4 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, 29—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 5 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, 30—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 6 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19, 31—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 7 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, 32—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 8 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 21, 33—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 9 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 22, 34—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 10 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 23, 35—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 11 supra and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 24, 36—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 12 supra and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20240427851—DAW type user interface for networked audio streaming
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692