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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
In paragraphs [0055], [0056] and [0058] reference character Sc is mentioned, but fails to appear in the Drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 17, reference characters Sb6, Sb7, Sb8, Sb9 and Sb10 are shown, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
In Figure 24, reference number 200 is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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.
In terms of claim 1, page 1, lines 18-19, please clarify whether “an intensity” and “a temporal change” of the target timbre are related to, or different from, the previously recited intensity with a temporal change of the reference signal.
Further in claim 1, please clarify how the first audio signal corresponds to a target timbre, while the reference signal is based on said target timbre.
Claim 1, page 1, line 23, the use of “similar to” is indefinite, given it lacks a clear, measurable, or well-defined scope that one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain from the specification. “Similar to” is a relative term of degree, and fails to define a specific, measurement standard. Please clarify in what way, or how, the reference rhythm pattern and the analysis rhythm pattern are similar.
Claim 2, page 2, line 3, it is recited that the analysis rhythm pattern is calculated for the second audio signal. This recitation is indefinite, given there is no previous mention of the analysis rhythm pattern being calculated for the first audio signal. Preceding claim 1 merely makes mention that the temporal change of the audio components of the first audio signal are represented by the analysis rhythm pattern, with no mention that the analysis rhythm pattern is procured or calculated.
Claim 2, page 2, line 5, the recitation that patterns are “similar” is indefinite for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Claim 2, page 2, line 5, please clarify whether “at least one reference rhythm pattern” is related to, or different from, the previously recited reference rhythm pattern.
Claim 3, page 2, line 15, please clarify whether “a timbre” is related to the previously recited timbre.
Claim 3, page 2, line 16, please clarify how the first training audio signal can include the plurality of audio components if the plurality of audio components are contained in the first audio signal.
Claim 3, page 2, lines 19-20, please clarify what the Applicant intends by “the training instruction data among the plurality of audio components included in the first training audio signal”.
Further in that recitation, please clarify which audio components are being referenced (i.e. audio components of first audio signal, first training audio signals or second training audio signals).
Claim 5, page 3, line 7, lease clarify which analysis rhythm pattern is being referenced (i.e. the pattern from claim 1, or the calculated pattern from claim 2).
Claim 6, page 3, line 18, again, please clarify which analysis rhythm pattern is being referenced.
Claim 7, page 4, lines 2-3, again, please clarify which analysis rhythm pattern is being referenced.
Claim 7, page 4, lines 4-5, please clarify whether “training input data and a training degree of similarity” are related to the previously recited input data and degree of similarity.
Claim 9, page 4, lines 16-17, please clarify whether ”a trained model” and “a first musical genre” are related to the trained model and musical genre in preceding claim 8.
Claim 11, page 5, line 6, please clarify which analysis rhythm pattern is being referenced.
Claim 14, is indefinite given it recites displaying the selected at least one reference signal, while no display means has been disclosed for the system of claim 1.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Further in claim 15, page 7, lines 1-2, please clarify whether the played piece of music is related to the first audio signal, or if it is unrelated. Still further, please clarify if the two emitted sounds are related.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites receiving, acquiring and selecting data and elements.
These limitations, as drafted, are steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind, with no tangible functional output, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implements”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, “acquiring” and “selecting” 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 claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese publication to Shinoi et al. (JP 2015-079110 A) (English Translation provided by the Examiner) in view of that which is well-known in the art.
In terms of claim 1, Shinoi et al. teaches an audio analysis system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see paragraphs [0010] and [0014]) to: receive an instruction indicative of a target sound (see paragraph [0012], target sound, performance sound (voice or sound of a musical instrument); acquire a first audio signal containing a plurality of audio components corresponding to different timbres (see paragraph [0012], mixed sound, plurality of performance parts, music piece); and select at least one reference signal from among a plurality of reference signals respectively representative of different pieces of audio based on the target timbre and the first audio signal (see paragraphs [0015] and [0016], reference data, reference signal/sound), wherein the at least one reference signal has an intensity with a temporal change (see paragraphs [0018], [0019] and [0025], amplitude/power), the temporal change in the intensity of the at least one reference signal is represented by a reference rhythm pattern (see paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0031] and [0032]), the plurality of audio components include audio components corresponding to the target timbre, the audio components corresponding to the target timbre have an intensity with a temporal change, the temporal change in the intensity of the audio components corresponding to the target timbre is represented by an analysis rhythm pattern, and the reference rhythm pattern is similar to the analysis rhythm pattern (see references cited above and paragraph [0015], accompaniment pattern of a rhythm musical instrument, paragraphs [0028] and [0032], a temporal pattern (rhythm pattern of the acoustic component)).
Shinoi et al. fails to explicitly teach the target sound as a target timbre. Given a timbre is a character or quality of a musical sound or voice, and Shino et al. teaches the target sound as a performance sound (voice or sound of musical instrument, paragraph [0012]), and a characteristic matrix representing an acoustic signal of the target sound (see paragraph [0023]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, that the target sound of Shinoi et al. cold be a target timbre, exemplifying the characteristics of the voice or musical instrument sound.
As for claim 2, Shinoi et al. teaches calculating a rhythm pattern (see paragraphs [0028] and [0032]), therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to calculate such a pattern for additional audio signals, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts or steps of a device or method involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As for claim 4, Shinoi et al. teaches the use of a non-negative matrix factorization as claimed (see paragraph [0018]-[0023]). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claim 6, Shinoi et al. teaches calculating and suing a degree of similarity as claimed ( see paragraphs [0033] and [0034]). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claims 12 and 14, Shinoi et al. teaches multiple reference signals (see paragraphs [0022] (reference signals), [0019] (dividing reference signals, and [0020] (plurality of reference data)), and the ability to display information (see paragraphs [0009], [0013] and [0034]). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above I claim 1, given the disclosed electronic musical instrument is almost identical to the disclosed audio analysis system. Shinoi et al. further teaches emitting sounds as claimed (see paragraphs [0041], [0043] and [0057]). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
In terms of claim 16, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of system claim 1, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claim 16, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7-11 and 13 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.
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 provided by the Examiner, in particular, the US patent application publication to Sobajima et al. (US 2023/0351989).
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 06/23/2026
Prosecution Insights