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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 08/11/2026; however, the arguments were not found persuasive. As previously stated, the inventions as claimed have materially different modes of operation, resulting in different functionalities and effects, wherein the methods of Invention I and II require elements and steps not specified in the opposing Invention, thus leading to methods that can be used for different purposes. Further, the differing elements and steps in each method would result in divergent search strategies.
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:
Reference number 201 is mentioned in paragraphs [0045]-[0048], but fail to appear in the Drawings.
Reference numbers 201-2 through 201-11 are mentioned in paragraph [0046], but fail to appear in the Drawings.
Reference number 301 is mentioned in paragraphs [0049]-[0051], but fail 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:
Reference characters T1-T24 are shown in Figure 2, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
Reference characters T1-T(M)/T(N) are shown in Figure 3, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
Reference numbers 301-1 and 301-L are shown in Figure 3, but fail 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 4-6 and 10-12 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 claims 4 and 10, it is recited that the lyric content identifies at least one separation between two lyric lines and/or two groups of lyrics lines, while claims 5 and 11 recite the valence content identifies at least one separation between two successive portions of the audio content. It is unclear what the Applicant deems by these limitations, in particular, because the Specification fails to make any mention of identifying separation, or what is intended by a separation between elements. Please clarify.
Claims 6 and 12 depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations discussed 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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Pollack (US 2012/0017150).
In terms of claims 1 and 7, Pollack teaches a method comprising, by a computing device: receiving audio feed content from at least one microphone (see paragraphs [0040], [0047] and [0064]-[0066]); receiving audio content that includes metadata that describes a plurality of characteristics of the audio content (see paragraphs [0080] and [0093]; metadata data related to lyrics, [0039] and [0102]); generating audio output content that is based on the audio feed content and the audio content (see paragraphs [0040] and [0100]); receiving video feed content from at least one camera (see paragraphs [0048] and [0064]-[0066]); generating video output content that is based on: the video feed content, the audio content and/or at least one characteristic of the plurality of characteristics of the audio content, and the audio feed content (see paragraphs [0073], [0074], [0100] and [0123]); and outputting, to a media playback system: the audio output content, and the video output content (see paragraph [0046]).
As for claim 2, Pollack teaches the playback system comprising at least one display device (see paragraphs [0046]) and at least one audio output device (aural playback, paragraphs [0068], [0071], [0073] and [0084]).
As for claim 3, Pollack teaches the computing device comprising a set-top box receiving the video and audio content as claimed (see paragraphs [0064] and [0128]).
As for claim 4, Pollack teaches the video output content based on lyric content (see paragraphs [0039], [0097]-[0099] and [0102]), and including at least one video transition (see paragraphs [0059] and [0073]).
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 5, 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollack in view of that which is well-known in the art.
As for claim 5, Pollack teaches all the above claimed elements of preceding claim 1, including the inclusion of a video effect transition (see paragraphs 0059] and [0073]), but fails to explicitly teach the video output content based on a characteristic such as valence. Given valence indicates the mood or emotion triggered by a media composition, and Pollack teaches outputting content based on category or genre (see paragraph [0080] and [0123]), it would have been obvious to base the video output on a characteristic such as valence, given music genres influence mood by combining tempo, rhythm, harmony, and timbre to evoke specific emotional responses, making genre a useful guide for shaping feelings and mental states.
Similarly, in claim 6, it would have been obvious to base the valence value of a given portion of audio content on underlying meaning, tempo or frequency band, given, again, Pollack teach basing content on genre, and music genres influence mood by combining tempo, rhythm, harmony, and timbre to evoke specific emotional responses, making genre a useful guide for shaping feelings and mental states.
In terms of claims 8 and 13, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claims 1, 2 and 7, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of system claims 8 and 13, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
Pollack, however, fails to explicitly teach the use of a speaker. Given Pollack teaches providing aural output through multiple well-known devices (see paragraphs [0046]), and said devices are known in the art to include speakers, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the audio output device of Pollack would be a speaker or speakers.
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 5.
Claims 12 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 6.
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 patents to Smith et al. (11,848,032) and Kumar et al. (6,971,882), and the US patent application publications to Reynolds et al. (US 2014/0109750), Steinwedel et al. (US 2022/0122573) and Smith et al. (US 2023/0095431).
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 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights