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:
Paragraph [0104], Examiner believes user interface 500 should instead be user interface 800.
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 2-24 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 2 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. There appears to be no correlation or relationship between the first and second musical input data (i.e. how is the second musical input data related to the first musical input data or the musical composition?), there is no tangible output, and it is unclear to what device or element the first channel is associated with (i.e. associated with a first channel of what?).
Further in claim 2, the recitation “generating … difference based on the portion” is indefinite. Please clarify what is being generated, given a difference is generally determined, not generated. Please clarify.
Similarly, a difference is determined between the second and first musical input data in the preceding limitation, Therefore, it is unclear if the method determines a difference, how then can the method generate a difference. Please clarify.
Lastly, please clarify when the step of comparing the second musical input data to the first musical input data occurs in the method, given generating the difference is based on said comparison.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 9, the recitation “each channel” is indefinite, given the preceding claim only recites a single channel.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a second channel.
Further, please clarify how the second channel relates to the first channel, given the second musical input is associated with both.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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 2-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17, 19-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Sung et al. (US 2016/0358595).
In terms of claim 2, Sung et al. teaches a method for collaborating on a musical composition over a communication network, the musical composition including first musical input data associated with a first channel, the method comprising: receiving, by processing circuitry, second musical input data from a client device, the second musical input data being associated with the first channel (input sent to same channel (111) to be mixed; see paragraphs [0051] and [0052]; MIDI inherently has channels, paragraphs [0036] and [0045]); determining, by the processing circuitry, whether a portion of the second musical input data is different from a corresponding portion of the first musical input data; and upon determining the portion of the second musical input data is different from a corresponding portion of the first musical input data, generating, by the processing circuitry, difference based on the portion of the second musical input data compared to the corresponding portion of the first musical input data (see paragraphs [0051] and [0052]; [0036] pitch correction for portions; [0064] and [0067] also show pitch correction resulting from a comparison; [0044] continuous pitch correction to sequences/portions; [0052] input selected for inclusion based on analysis; claim 11, encoding sections corresponding with performer track).
As for claim 3, Sung et al. teaches synchronizing or mixing multiple inputs (see paragraphs [0031], [0048], [0049] and [0051]).
As for claim 4, Sung et al. teaches instructions or steps based on timing (see Abstract, performance timeline, and paragraphs [0032], [0041], [0051], [0052], [0059] and [0060]).
As for claim 5, Sung et al. teaches transmitting data to a memory (110) accessible via the network (see paragraphs [0016], [0078] and [0080]).
As for claim 7, Sung et al. teaches receiving instructions regarding synchronization or micing, generating host composition data (101) and transmitting the host composition data to a memory (110) (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0043] and [0045]).
As for claim 8, Sung et al. teaches data relating to tempo (see paragraphs [0052] and [0053]).
As for claim 9, Sung et al. teaches associations with instruments (musical, vocal, etc.) (see paragraphs 0038] and [0039]).
As for claim 11, Sung et al. teaches synchronizing based on timing information (see references cited above in claim 4).
In terms of claims 12-15, 17, 19-22, and 24, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claims 2-5 and 7, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of stored instruction claims 12-15 and 17, and system claims 19-22 and 24, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus, and the method is considered inseparable from the instructions for implementing the method.
At least independent claims 1, 12 and 19 can further be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Rofe et al. (US 2020/0186575)(see Figures 3-5B), and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Packouz et al. (US 2019/0066643) (see Figures 2A-2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 16, 18 and 23 are believed to 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.
Presently, no prior art could be found which teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 6, 10, 16, 18 and 23 in combination with the method, instructions and system presented in the independent claims.
Once the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are overcome, and a better understanding of the present invention is received, a further search and consideration of the prior art will be conducted.
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.
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 11/14/2025