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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mid-live region” and “live region” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The prep region (607, 801) is shown, but the other two claimed regions are not. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1-18 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, it is recited that the primary device is in communication with a data library, wherein the data library includes a plurality of static music notation files, each file divided into a plurality of blocks. It is later stated that the primary device communicates a dynamic notation file to the receiver and presents a GUI for moving selections of one or more of the plurality of blocks. These two recitations are indefinite with respect to one another, given there is no clear relationship cited between the static music notation files divided into blocks and the dynamic notation file (i.e. unclear the relationship between the primary device, the dynamic notation file and the static music notation file).
Further, it is unclear whether the dynamic notation file is music notation, or music related, similar to the static music notation files.
Still further, line 11, “a GUI” is recited. Please clarify whether this GUI is related to, the same as, or different from, the previously recited GUI.
Further in line 11, “selections” are recited. Please clarify which part of the system makes said selections of blocks, or whether the selections are both selected and moved on the GUI through the controls.
As for claim, again, given there is no relationship cited between the dynamic notation file and the static music notation file, it is unclear how the dynamic notation file is a representation of the blocks of the static music notation file.
Further, please clarify whether the same configuration of the plurality of blocks is presented to the receiver and presented through the primary device in different formats, or whether it is intended to have two separate configurations.
Claims 3-8, the recitation that the plurality of blocks are divided is indefinite. Please clarify if the blocks are indeed divided further, or whether the file is divided into specific types of blocks based on instruments, time, etc.
Claim 9, it appears that a duplicate recitation of claim 1 is presented in the beginning of the claim.
Further, line 1 and line 4, “a GUI” is recited. Please clarify whether either of these GUIs are related to either of the GUIs recite in preceding claim 1.
Line 8, please clarify which GUI is being referenced.
Lines 2 and 8, please clarify whether the “selections” are related to any of the previously cited selections.
Line 8, please clarify whether “controls” are related to the previously recited controls.
Lines 10-11, “communicates the dynamic notation file based on the blocks in the mid-live region and live region to the receiver device” is indefinite. Please clarify whether the blocks in the mid-live and live regions are related to the previously recited configuration of blocks on which it is previously recited the dynamic notation file is based on.
Further in claim 9, please clarify to what the start and present time refers (start and present time of what?).
Still further, please clarify how a displayed region can span a period of time. Such a region can display a timeline or specified duration of music, but it itself cannot span time.
Still further, please clarify how the live region can span from a start time, or present time, through a burn threshold. Please clarify whether the intent was to claim the span from the start/present time through to a burn threshold.
Lastly, please clarify what is intended by a burn threshold (i.e. threshold of what?; related to time, the regions, etc.)
Claim 10, please clarify whether which GUI is being referenced, and whether the “controls” and “selections” are related to any of the previously recited controls and selections.
Claim 11, please which GUI is being referenced.
Claim 15, it is previously recited that the static music notation files and their blocks are stored in the data library, while claim 15 recites the static music notation file as automatically created by the system. Please clarify that the Applicant intends for the static music notation files to be created by the system and then stored in the system, and that the files stored and the same as those automatically created.
As for claims 16-18, similar rejections, as discussed above in claims 1 and 4-10, apply.
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 1, 8, 9-12, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Japanese publication JP 4030607 B2 (‘607).
In terms of claim 1, ‘607 teaches a system comprising: a data library (32) including a plurality of static music notation files, each static music notation file represented as divided into a plurality of blocks (see paragraph [0020]); a primary device (20, 50) in communication with the data library (see Figure 1), the primary device including a user interface (see paragraph [0020]), memory (26) storing program instructions, and a communications module (36); a receiver device (40, 41, 42, 44, 46) in communication with the primary device (see Figure 1); wherein, in response to executing the instructions, the primary device: communicates a dynamic notation file to the receiver device based on a configuration of the plurality of blocks arranged by the primary device (see Figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0020] and [0021]); and presents a GUI including controls for moving selections of one or more of the plurality of blocks in real-time while the communication to the receiver device is in progress (see paragraphs [0023] and [0032]).
As for claim 2, ‘607 teaches sending and receiving data in appropriate formats (see paragraph [0016]), and blocks of differing types such as audio and video (see paragraph [0027]).
As for claim 9, ‘607 teaches a window based interface (i.e. regions) (see paragraphs [0016] and [0018]), wherein blocks are placed on a timeline according to source material (see paragraph [0008]).
Once claim 9 is amended to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections, and a better understanding of that which the Applicant deems as their invention is received, the Examiner believes the claim might contain allowable subject matter.
As for claim 10, ‘607 again teaches control for moving selected blocks (see references cited above).
As for claim 11, ‘607 teaches block modification control (see paragraphs [0021] and [0029]).
As for claim 12, ‘607 teaches the ability to adjust functional relationships (see paragraph [0004]), and the ability to move one block and have a corresponding block automatically move in relation (see paragraph [0029]).
As for claim 15,’607 teaches automatically creating blocks using an editor of the system (see paragraphs [0020] and [0021]), automatically creating blocks based on user input (see paragraph [0032]), and allowing for some editing functions, used in creating the tracks of blocks, to be automatic (see paragraphs [0033], [0034] and claim 6).
In terms of claims 16 and 18, similar rejections apply as discussed above in claims 1, 9 and 10.
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 3-8, 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘607 in view of that which is well-known in the art.
As for claims 3-8 and 17, ‘607 again teaches blocks of audio and video (see paragraph [0027]), and said blocks having differing durations (see Figures 2-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to divide the tracks by instrument or instrumentalist (i.e. audio of different instruments or different voices), specified times or durations, or sections of songs. ‘607 teaches splitting, moving and pasting blocks in any manner deemed fit by the user to accomplish the desired result.
As for claims 13 and 14, ‘607 fails to explicitly teach a reverb control. However, ‘607 does teach the use of a special effect resource (46) and special effects (see paragraph [0004]). Therefore, given reverb is a well-known applied special effect in the music art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have one of the special effects used in ‘607 be reverb.
References of Note
Other references the Examiner found to be of particular note with regards to the above claims are: The US patent application publications to Goren et al. (US 2020/0227012), Georges et al. (US 2014/0000440), Little et al. (US 2013/0233155), Hufford (US 2010/0257994), and O’Dwyer (US 2010/0132536), and the US patent to Pereverzev (11,948,543).
Conclusion
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 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights