Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/527,845

Vocal Attenuation Mechanism in On-Device App

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 04, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, TUAN S
Art Unit
2179
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
206 granted / 318 resolved
+9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
335
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 318 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Response to Amendment This communication is responsive to Amendment filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1-9, 21-31 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 21 and 29 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final. Examiner Notes The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art. 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 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. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 21, 24-25, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”, US PG-Pub. 2024/0170002 A1) in view of Jaini et al. (“Jaini”, US PG-Pub. 2019/0018572 A). Re-claim 1, Li teaches a method, comprising: obtaining, from a media service, a media item (Fig. 5, [0095]. Li describes the process of receiving an input audio signal in block 502); applying the media item to a separator network to generate a modified media item, wherein the separator network is configured to generate the modified media item by isolating a first audio component of the media item into an isolated audio track such that the modified media item comprises the isolated audio track and one or more additional audio tracks (Fig. 5, [0096]. Li describes the process of separating the input audio signal into a vocal component (i.e. isolated audio track) and a non-vocal component (i.e. additional audio track) shown in block 504 as a modified audio signal). Li fails to teach receiving selection of the media item for playback. However, Jaini teaches: receiving selection of the media item for playback (Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, [0050, 0057-0063, 0089, 0094]. Jaini describes the media item is selected to playback. Jaini also describes in paragraph [0060] as “…In some implementations, the user-generated audio content and the source audio content can be played at different volume levels.” and in paragraph [0094] about the playback video data as “…The data may include video data associated with the source content item, audio data associated with the source content item, captioning data associated with the source content item, etc. In some implementations, the source content item may have one or more audio components, such as a song, a speech, a movie's voice part, etc.” that indicates different audio components can be controlled to play at different volume levels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s part technique for dereverberation teachings of Li with the media playback associated with associated media component parts teaching of Jaini to provide users flexible options to control each separated or isolated media content portions independently for singalong or recording performance in a customization manner. Re-claim 4, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in the method of claim 1, Li also teaches the method, wherein the isolated audio track is a vocals track (Fig. 5, [0097]. Li describes “At 506 process 500 can classify the vocal component as one of: 1) speech; or 2) non-speech …”). Re-claim 5, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in the method of claim 1, Li also teaches the method, wherein the media item includes instrumental and vocals (Fig. 5, [0096, 0098]. Li describes “At 504, process 500 can separate the input audio signal into a vocal component and a non-vocal component…” and “At 508, process 500 can classify the non-vocal component as one of: 1) music; and 2) non-music … ”). Re-claim 8, Li-Jaini teaches in the method of claim 1, but Li fails to teach a method, wherein the media item is a song. However, Jaini teaches: wherein the media item is a song ([0053]. Jaini describes “…In some implementations, the source audio content corresponds to an audio component of the source content item (e.g., a song, a speech, a movie's voice part, etc.) …” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s part technique for dereverberation teachings of Li with the media playback associated with associated media component parts teaching of Jaini to provide users flexible options to control each separated or isolated media content portions independently for singalong or recording performance in a customization manner. Re-claim 21, It is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 24, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in claim 21, claim 24 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 25, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in claim 21, claim 25 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 28, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in claim 21, claim 28 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 8; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 29, It is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Claims 2-3, 6-7, 22-23, 26-27 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jaini, and further in view of Humphrey (US PG-Pub. 2011/0252948 A1). Re-claim 2, Li-Jaini teaches the method of claim 1, but Li fails to teach a method, further comprising: providing functionality to modify one or more characteristics of the isolated audio track during playback of the media item. However, Humphrey teaches: providing functionality to modify one or more characteristics of the isolated audio track during playback of the media item (Fig. 14, [0097]. Humphrey describes “…FIG. 14 illustrates a display for a graphical user interface offering state selections for track faders, volume fader control, and transport selections, in which only the isolated instrument audio track and the emulated instrument audio track are selected on a multi-track audio recording designed for use with the system for learning and mixing music, according to some embodiments.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s parts technique teachings of modified Li with the separating and mixing audio tracks GUI teaching of Humphrey to control the volume of the isolated audio tracks in mixing music process. Re-claim 3, Li-Jaini-Humphrey teaches the method of claim 2, but Li fails to teach a method, wherein the one or more characteristics include volume output of the isolated audio track during playback of the media item. However, Humphrey teaches: wherein the one or more characteristics include volume output of the isolated audio track during playback of the media item (Fig. 14, [0097]. Humphrey describes “…FIG. 14 illustrates a display for a graphical user interface offering state selections for track faders, volume fader control, and transport selections, in which only the isolated instrument audio track and the emulated instrument audio track are selected on a multi-track audio recording designed for use with the system for learning and mixing music, according to some embodiments.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s parts technique teachings of modified Li with the separating and mixing audio tracks GUI teaching of Humphrey to control the volume of the isolated audio tracks in mixing music process. Re-claim 6, Li-Jaini teaches the method of claim 1, but Li fails to teach a method, wherein a graphical representation of the media item includes at least one graphical indicator. However, Humphrey teaches: wherein a graphical representation of the media item includes at least one graphical indicator (Fig. 14, [0092, 0097]. Humphrey describes “…The functionality of the volume/fader controls 1210 is provided by the volume indicators 1215 to indicate sound pressure level and the faders 1220,1225,1230,1235 to adjust volume in the manner of a potentiometer or digitometer, for example”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s parts technique teachings of modified Li with the separating and mixing audio tracks GUI teaching of Humphrey to provide user a convenient GUI to interact and control the volume of the isolated audio tracks in mixing music process. Re-claim 7, Li-Jaini-Humphrey teaches the method of claim 6, but Li fails to teach a method, wherein the at least one graphical indicator indicates that vocal attenuation is available for the media item. However, Humphrey teaches: wherein the at least one graphical indicator indicates that vocal attenuation is available for the media item (Fig. 14, [0092, 0097]. Humphrey describes “…The functionality of the volume/fader controls 1210 is provided by the volume indicators 1215 to indicate sound pressure level and the faders 1220,1225,1230,1235 to adjust volume in the manner of a potentiometer or digitometer, for example”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s parts technique teachings of modified Li with the separating and mixing audio tracks GUI teaching of Humphrey to provide user a convenient GUI to interact and control the volume of the isolated audio tracks in mixing music process. Re-claim 22, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in claim 21, claim 22 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 23, in addition to what Li-Jaini-Humphrey teaches in claim 22, claim 23 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 26, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in claim 21, claim 26 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 27, in addition to what Li-Jaini-Humphrey teaches in claim 26, claim 27 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 30, in addition to what Li-Jaini teaches in claim 29, claim 30 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Re-claim 31, in addition to what Li-Jaini-Humphrey teaches in claim 30, claim 31 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jaini, and further in view of Jansson (US PG-Pub. 2020/0043517 A1). Re-claim 9, Li-Mahar-Jaini teaches in the method of claim 1, but Li fails to teach a method, wherein the media item is an album. However, Jansson teaches: wherein the media item is an album ([0111]. Jansson describes the media item is an album). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating media content’s parts technique teachings of modified Li with the media context teaching of Jansson to identify the media item is an album. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 with respect to amended claim 1 and new claims 21 and 29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5). 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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached 571-272-4034. 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. /TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 29, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 20, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602157
SIMULATION DEVICE SUITABLE FOR USE IN AUGMENTED-REALITY OR VIRTUAL-REALITY ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591354
MEASURING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574957
DISPLAY METHOD OF WIRELESS DEVICE FOR CONNECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566914
SYSTEM AND METHODS TO FACILITATE CONTENT GENERATION USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568165
NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK CONNECTION ICON
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 318 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month