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 .
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claimed invention is directed towards a companion application. Per ¶[0024] of the specification, “The terms “application” and “program” refer to one or more computer programs, software components, sets of instructions, procedures, functions, objects, classes, instances, related data, or a portion thereof adapted for implementation in a suitable computer readable program code.”
While computer programs are also described in ¶[0024] as being “embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium”, they are also described as “software components…or a portion thereof adapted for implementation in a suitable computer readable program code.”
This second description is not defined as non-transitory computer readable medium. Computer readable program code may be embodied in many ways, including transitory signals received at a device. It may even be embodied as paper or another suitable medium upon which the program is printed, as the program can be electronically captured, via, for instance, optical scanning of the paper or other medium, then compiled, interpreted, or otherwise processed in a suitable manner, if necessary, and then stored in a computer memory,” Therefore claims 16-20 are directed to non-statutory embodiments including transitory mediums/signals/software per se.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the term "the processor" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes “the processor” will be read as “the controller.”
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Screen Captures and Dialogue Transcript from YouTube video clip entitled “Bounce Factory 1: Basic Snapshots,” (hereinafter Scheps) 12 pages, uploaded on March, 28, 2022 by user “@andrewscheps6714”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgZPZIq_lw> in view of Vercellotti et al (hereinafter Vercellotti), US Patent No. 11,029,915, in further view of Sato et al (hereinafter Sato), US-PG-PUB No. 2007/0190929.
Regarding claim 1, Scheps discloses an audio editing system comprising:
An application (Bounce Factory is a software application shown operating in the macOS environment…..Fig. 1, symbol 1 (02:14)) for processing audio data (Bounce Factory processes mixes as WAV (audio) data files…..Fig. 2, symbols 1 and 2 (02:14));
an operating system (Bounce Factory is shown to operate in the macOS environment, macOS being an operating system (a type of software for providing an interface between a computer’s hardware and software applications) configured to establish communication between the application and “Pro Tools” audio editing software (Bounce Factory is designed to automate Pro Tools, a software-based digital audio workstation…..Transcript, 0:18-0:26, Fig. 1, symbol 2 (02:14)), Pro Tools having an audio production program executing thereon (Pro Tools contains an audio production program, and is being used to produce an audio session titled “Bounce Factory Demo,” shown in Fig. 1, Symbol 3…..Transcript 0:26-0:33) and at least one audio project stored therein (The “Bounce Factory Demo” session (project) previously mentioned);
a scanner controlled by the application (The “Take Snapshot” command engages a scanner that scans the currently loaded project for bounce information…..Transcript, 01:10 to 01:47, Fig. 3 (01:23)) to obtain information about the audio project loaded in the audio production program of the digital audio workstation (Take Snapshot populates information obtained from the currently loaded project, and there is no indication is will operate if a project is not loaded);
in response to a confirmation that the audio project is loaded, the scanner analyzes the audio project to obtain a list of all tracks corresponding to the audio project (While scanning the project Bounce Factory has selected (obtained) a list of all tracks on the left side of the screen…..Fig. 3 (01:23)); and
an automated bouncing module receiving a job list which includes multiple jobs (Shown in Fig. 4 (09:36), a bounce (job) list including with a “bounce all” button for including multiple jobs is present, and described as having multiple jobs…..Transcript 9:58-10:04), each job indicating a selection of said tracks (Jobs save (indicate) the session settings, including track selection…..Transcript, 08:51-08:55) and a cycle range (Shown by Fig. 2, symbol 3, settings include the bounce selection (cycle range)) to bounce into at least one mix file (Shown by Fig. 1, symbols 1 and 2, Bounce Factory bounces a mix from a mix source into a file), wherein
the automated bouncing module transmits bounce commands to the audio production program to automatically bounce the respective selection of said tracks for each job consecutively in a single run (Bounce factory automatically bounces multiple mix passes and snapshots (each a type of job) which, as stated above, reflect the respective selection of tracks for each job…..Transcript, 00:26-00:51), and wherein the automated bouncing module automatically names each mix file with distinct names according to a pre-defined naming convention (Shown at Fig. 1, symbol 1, Bounce Factory names a mix file according to the pre-defined session name).
While Scheps discloses an application to process audio data, and an operating system to interface between the audio editing application and Pro Tools software, Scheps fails to explicitly disclose wherein the audio editing system and application comprises a controller for processing audio data, or an interface configured to establish communication between the controller and a digital audio workstation.
Additionally, while Scheps teaches a scanner, controlled by the application, for analyzing an audio project, Scheps additionally fails to explicitly disclose wherein the scanner is controlled by the controller to determine whether the audio project is loaded in the audio production program of the digital audio workstation.
Vercellotti teaches an audio editing system comprising a controller (An ARM or Intel processor…..Col. 15, lines 30-31) for processing audio data (For audio signal processing…..Col. 15, lines 30-31); and an interface (The processor is part of an audio interface…..Col. 15, lines 27-30) configured to establish communication between the controller and a digital audio workstation (The audio interface provides audio data from its controller to a workstation hosting a DAW such a “Pro Tools”…..Col. 15, lines 62-65, lines 4-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Scheps to incorporate the teachings of Vercellotti, and provide wherein the audio editing system and application operate via a controller for processing audio data, or an interface configured to establish communication between the controller and a digital audio workstation, also resulting in wherein the scanner of Scheps, controlled by the application of Scheps, is now also controlled by a controller. This would provide the benefit of an audio editing system able to perform the desired audio signal processing with low latency while using a reduced number of connections between different locations (Vercellotti, Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 3).
This combination of Scheps and Vercellotti still fails to teach wherein the scanner determines whether the audio project is loaded in the audio production program of the digital audio workstation.
Sato teaches a media scanner (A controller scans for audio information in a location pointed at by a playlist file.....¶[0011], lines 8-11) which determines whether audio information is loaded in the memory of a terminal (The scanner determines if the audio exists (is loaded) within the device.....¶[0011], lines 8-12).
Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of audio processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps and Vercellotti to incorporate the teachings of Sato, and provide wherein the scanner determines whether the audio project is loaded in the audio production program of the digital audio workstation. This would provide the benefit of a system which may alert a user when no audio project is available (¶[0011], lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 1.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the scanner scans the audio project to obtain bounce settings of the digital audio workstation and mirror the bounce settings in the audio editing system (While scanning, Bounce Factory obtains the DAW Bounce Dialogue setup (settings) to mirror…..Transcript, 1:14-1:29).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 2.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the controller is configured to modify the bounce setting in the audio editing system on a per-job basis (Explained in the rejection of Claim 1, and as Shown in Fig. 4, each job is saved as a snapshot, the snapshot maintaining the bounce settings in each job, and loading them as the bounce is processed…..Transcript, 08:51-08:55)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 2.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the bounce settings obtained from the digital audio workstation include the cycle range (Shown in Fig. 5 (1:38), Bounce Factory is prompting the user to make a timeline selection (cycle range)…..Transcript, 1:29-1:42).
Claims 5-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti and Sato, in further view of Screen Captures and Dialogue Transcript from YouTube video clip entitled “Bounce Factory 2: Advanced Snapshots,” (hereinafter BF2) uploaded on March, 28, 2022 by user “@andrewscheps6714”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC7lnJ7Gmh0>. (Year: 2022)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 1, but fail to teach an editor that sets the pre-defined naming convention, utilizing dynamic naming blocks.
BF2 teaches an editor that sets the pre-defined naming convention (BounceFactory has an editor for generatively naming stem outputs, shown in BF2, Fig 1), wherein the editor provides a plurality of dynamic naming blocks each defining a naming convention (Shown in BF2, Fig. 1, naming block “Stems Base Name” shows a naming block dynamically generated from the session name, while the indicated term “Drums” in the example output is dynamically generated from the list of track names shown in BF2, Fig. 2…..BF2 Transcript, 12:15-12:27), wherein a portion of the dynamic naming blocks are combined to form the pre-defined naming convention (Shown in BF2, Fig. 1, the indicated example output shows a combination of the dynamic naming blocks).
wherein each dynamic naming block automatically updates based on project names and track names (Shown in BF2, Figs. 1 and 2, and explained in the rejection above, the stem names update based on the track names…..BF2 Transcript, 12:15-12:27),
wherein the editor provides at least one custom naming block defined by a user (Shown in BF2, Mix Pass Prefix and Suffix may be customized by a user…..BF2 Transcript, 11:40-11:59) wherein the pre-defined naming convention includes the at least one custom naming block (Shown in BF2, Fig. 1, the example name includes the Mix Pass Prefix and Suffix).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato to incorporate the teachings of BF2 and provide an editor that sets the pre-defined naming convention, utilizing dynamic naming blocks. This would provide the benefit of an application which is capable of setting up large batches of stem bounces quickly (BF2 Transcript 10:43-11:00).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 5, wherein each dynamic naming block automatically updates based on project names and track names.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 5, wherein the editor provides at least one custom naming block defined by a user, wherein the pre-defined naming convention includes the at least one custom naming block.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 1.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the list of tracks obtained by the scanner includes tracks that are hidden (Shown in Fig. 3, symbol 1, all tracks are being shown), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the list of tracks obtained include tracks that are turned off in the audio production program.
BF2 teaches wherein a scanner includes tracks that are turned off in the audio production program of the digital audio workstation (Tracks previously turned off are turned on…..Transcript 6:17-6:33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato to incorporate the teachings of BF2 and provide wherein the list of tracks obtained include tracks that are turned off in the audio production program. This would provide the benefit of an application which allows you to change the tracks used when bouncing clean and explicit versions of songs sequentially (BF2 Transcript 6:17-6:33).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 1.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the audio editing system comprises a mix mode (As explained in the rejection of Claim 1, Bounce Factory is capable of bouncing multiple tracks into a mix….. Transcript, 08:51-08:55) and at least three different stem modes (Bounce Factory may bounce stems, which may be encoded as WAV, MP3, and AIFF (three different modes)…..Transcript 0:07-0:12, Fig. 6) wherein each job is set to one of said modes (A job is configured to bounce one track (a stem) or multiple tracks (a mix)); wherein
in the mix mode, every visible track or track stack (Jobs provide instructions to mix all session settings, including track selection…..Transcript, 08:51-08:55) that is selected for one of the jobs is mixed down into a single mix file (Shown by Fig. 1, symbols 1 and 2, Bounce Factory bounces a mix from a mix source into a file).
This further combination fails to explicitly teach wherein in the stem modes, every visible track that is selected is exported as an individual stem file.
BF2 teaches a stem mode wherein every visible track that is selected for one of the jobs is exported as an individual stem file (Each stem is isolated into an individual pass…..BF2 transcript 15:22-15:30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato to incorporate the teachings of BF2 and provide wherein in the stem modes, every visible track that is selected is exported as an individual stem file. This would provide the benefit of an application which is capable of setting up large batches of stem bounces quickly (BF2 Transcript 10:43-11:00).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2 teach the audio editing system of claim 12.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the at least three different stem modes includes a static stem mode; wherein in response to said one of the jobs being set to the static stem mode, all stems bounced for said one of the jobs have a common start point and a common end point (Shown by Fig. 2, symbol 3, settings include the bounce timeline selection (cycle range), which defaults to the length of the entire track. This timeline selection applies to the stems produced in that snapshot…..Transcript 1:33-1:40).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti and Sato, in further view of Screen Captures and Dialogue Transcript from YouTube video clip entitled “Bounce Factory 4: Getting Ready to Bounce,” (hereinafter BF4) uploaded on March, 28, 2022 by user “@andrewscheps6714”.Retrieved from Internet: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRaR1RxS6E>. (Year: 2022)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teaches the audio editing system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the automated bouncing module selectively mutes one or more auxiliary channels in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs to bounce a set of dry stems.
BF4 teaches an automated bouncing module that selectively mutes one or more auxiliary channels in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs to bounce a set of dry stems. (Shown in BF4, Fig. 1, inserts (auxiliary channels) may either be force-enabled, or imported from snapshot settings. In order to bounce a set of dry stems, a user may take a snapshot with auxiliary channels disabled and use this as the basis for the stem bounce job…..Transcript 4:09-4:36),
wherein the automated bouncing module is configured to bounce wet and dry mixes sequentially (A bounce pass may be saved to list using wet settings and dry settings sequentially, and selecting Bounce All in the automation module Bounce Factory will bounce both sequentially…..Transcript 0:10-0:14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato to incorporate the teachings of BF4 and provide wherein the automated bouncing module selectively mutes one or more auxiliary channels in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs to bounce a set of dry stems. This would provide the benefit of an application which is capable of efficiently providing solutions for client demands (BF4 Transcript 2:38-2:52).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF4, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 9 wherein the automated bouncing module is configured to bounce wet and dry mixes sequentially.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the automated bouncing module selectively turns off one or more FX inserts on a master out fader in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs.
BF4 teaches an audio editing system wherein the automated bouncing module selectively turns off one or more FX inserts on a master out fader in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs to bounce an unmastered set of stems. (Shown in BF4, Fig. 1, inserts (auxiliary channels) may either be force-enabled, or imported from snapshot settings. In order to bounce a set of dry stems, a user may take a snapshot with auxiliary channels disabled and use this as the basis for the stem bounce job…..BF4 Transcript 4:09-4:36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, and Sato to incorporate the teachings of BF4 and provide wherein the automated bouncing module selectively turns off one or more FX inserts on a master out fader in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs to bounce an unmastered set of stems. This would provide the benefit of an application which is capable efficiently providing solutions for client demands (BF4 Transcript 2:38-2:52).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2, in further view of Screen Captures and Dialogue Transcript from YouTube video clip entitled “How to Export Stems in Logic Pro X - Exporting Stems in Logic X,” (hereinafter Unders) uploaded on June, 7, 2018 by user “@Unders”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzhOGSiS0I>.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 12, but fail to teach wherein the at least three different stem modes includes a variable-end stem mode.
Unders teaches an audio editing system (Logic DAW) wherein bounce modes includes a variable-end stem mode (Shown in Fig. 1, the export range is set to trim silence at file end (vary the end)); wherein
in response to said one of the jobs being set to the variable-end stem mode, all stems bounced for said one of the jobs have a common start point (The stems will all start at the same place…..Transcript 1:26-1:38), and each stem bounced for said one of the jobs has a variable end point defined by an end of the last region of the selected track (If the stem doesn’t occur in the rest of the track it will cut the silence (ending after the last region of the track)…..Transcript 1:26-1:38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined disclosures of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2 to incorporate the teachings of Unders, and provide wherein the at least three different stem modes includes a variable-end stem mode. This would provide the benefit of a bounce mode which precludes generating large files containing silence (Unders Transcript 1:38-1:43).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2, in further view of Screen Captures and Dialogue Transcript from YouTube video clip entitled “Logic Tips – Bounce in Place,” (hereinafter MusicTech) uploaded on August, 28, 2020 by user “@MusicTechOfficial”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufQiyDocGTM>.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2, as explained above, teach the audio editing system of claim 12, as explained above, but fail to disclose wherein the at least three different stem modes includes a variable-start variable-end stem mode.
MusicTech teaches an audio editing system (Logic DAW) wherein bounce modes include a variable-start variable-end stem mode (Bounce Regions In Place), wherein
in response to said one of the jobs being set to the variable-start variable-end stem mode, each stem bounced for said one of the jobs has a variable start point defined by a start of the first region of the selected track or selected track stack in the cycle range (Shown in Fig. 1, the resulting bounce (in green) has the same length as the region it was created from, selected in Fig. 2). As this tool is for multiple regions, it follows that if an entire track was selected, it would begin at the start of the first region.), and
each stem bounced for said one of the jobs has a variable end point defined by an end of the last region of the selected track in the cycle range (Shown in Fig. 1 (1:04), the resulting bounce (in green) has the same length as the region it was created from, shown as selected in Fig. 2 (3:42). As this tool may be applied to multiple regions, it follows that if an entire track was selected, it would finish at the end of the first region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined disclosures of Scheps, Vercellotti, Sato, and BF2 to incorporate the teachings the teachings of MusicTech, and provide wherein the at least three different stem modes includes a variable-start variable-end stem mode. This would provide the benefit of a bounce mode which produces PCM samples which may be modified in ways that MIDI regions can not (MusicTech Transcript 4:44-5:18).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti.
Regarding claim 16, Scheps discloses an audio editing companion application (Shown in Fig. 3, application Bounce Factory is shown interacting (as a companion) to Pro Tools…..Transcript 0:18-0:26) comprising: SoundFlow automation software (Bounce Factory is is written in soundflow, a platform for interfacing with DAW software…..Transcript 0:18-0:26) registering the companion application with an audio production program of Pro Tools audio editing software (Pro Tools (a digital audio workstation comprising an audio production program) is the software which Bounce Factory is designed as a companion to…..Fig. 1, symbol 2 (02:14) Transcript 0:18-0:26), SoundFlow establishing a hook into the audio production program (Shown in Fig. 3, Bounce Factory operates by inserting (hooking) commands into ProTools to scan an active project…..Transcript, 01:10 to 01:47); a scanner detecting an audio project which is loaded in the audio production program of the digital audio workstation (The Take Snapshot button scans (detects) a currently loaded project for track and bounce information…..Transcript, 01:10 to 01:47, Fig. 3 (01:23)), the scanner analyzing the audio project to obtain a list of all tracks corresponding to the audio project (While scanning the project Bounce Factory has selected a list of all tracks on the left side of the screen…..Fig. 3 (01:23); an automated bouncing module receiving a job list which includes multiple jobs (Shown in Fig. 4 (09:36), a bounce (job) list including with a “bounce all” button for including multiple jobs is present, and described as having multiple jobs…..Transcript 9:58-10:04), each job indicating a selection of said tracks (Jobs save (indicate) the session settings, including track selection…..Transcript, 08:51-08:55) and a cycle range (Shown by Fig. 2, symbol 3, settings include the bounce selection (cycle range)) to bounce into at least one mix file (Shown by Fig. 1, symbols 1 and 2, Bounce Factory bounces a mix from a mix source into a file), wherein
the automated bouncing module transmits bounce commands to the audio production program to automatically bounce the respective selection of said tracks for each job consecutively in a single run (Bounce factory automatically bounces multiple mix passes and snapshots (each a type of job) which, as stated above, reflect the respective selection of tracks for each job…..Transcript, 00:26-00:51), and wherein the automated bouncing module automatically names each mix file with distinct names according to a pre-defined naming convention (Shown at Fig. 1, symbol 1, Bounce Factory names a mix file according to the pre-defined session name), wherein the audio editing companion application runs on Pro Tools (Already established, Bounce Factory performs functions (runs) on Pro Tools…..Transcript 0:18-0:26).
Scheps fails to explicitly disclose wherein the audio editing companion application comprises a link interface registering the companion application with an audio production program of a digital audio workstation, instead disclosing automation software which interfaces the application with Pro Tools audio editing software.
Vercellotti teaches wherein the audio editing companion application (A software module (companion application)…..Col. 16, lines 61-63) comprises a link interface (A network interfaces plug-in modules with a main controller module…..Col. 7, lines 57-63) registering the companion application with an audio production program of a digital audio workstation (The plug-in modules are connected (registered to) a main controller module, comprising a DAW…..Col. 7, lines 42-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Scheps to incorporate the teachings of Vercellotti, and provide wherein the audio editing companion application comprises a link interface registering the companion application with an audio production program of a digital audio workstation. This would provide the benefit of an audio editing system able to perform the desired audio signal processing with low latency while using a reduced number of connections between different locations (Vercellotti, Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 3).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Scheps and Vercellotti, as explained above, teach the companion application of claim 16.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the multiples jobs have different cycle ranges (Shown by Fig. 2, symbol 3, settings include the bounce selection (cycle range). Bounce Factory allows the creation of multiple jobs, each of which may have cycle ranges configured individually…..Transcript, 1:29-1:42).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Scheps and Vercellotti, as explained above, teach the companion application of claim 16.
Scheps additionally teaches wherein the scanner scans the audio project to obtain bounce settings of the digital audio workstation and mirror the bounce settings in the audio editing system (While scanning, Bounce Factory obtains the DAW Bounce Dialogue setup (settings) to mirror…..Transcript, 1:14-1:29).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti in further view of BF2
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Scheps and Vercellotti, as explained above teach the companion application of claim 16, but fail to teach further comprising an editor that sets the pre-defined naming convention, wherein the editor provides a plurality of dynamic naming blocks each defining a naming convention.
BF2 teaches an editor that sets the pre-defined naming convention, wherein the editor provides a plurality of dynamic naming blocks each defining a naming convention. (Shown in BF2, Fig. 1, naming block “Stems Base Name” shows a naming block dynamically generated from the session name, while the indicated term “Drums” in the example output is dynamically generated from the list of track names shown in BF2, Fig. 2…..BF2 Transcript, 12:15-12:27) and at least one custom naming block defined by a user (Shown in BF2, Mix Pass Prefix and Suffix may be customized by a user…..BF2 Transcript, 11:40-11:59), wherein a portion of the dynamic naming blocks and the custom naming block are combined to form the pre-defined naming convention (Shown in BF2, Fig. 1, the indicated example output shows a combination of the dynamic naming blocks and custom naming blocks); wherein each dynamic naming block automatically updates based on project names and track names (Shown in BF2, Figs. 1 and 2, and explained in the rejection above, the stem names update based on the track names).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps, and Vercellotti to incorporate the teachings of BF2 and provide an editor that sets the pre-defined naming convention, utilizing dynamic naming blocks. This would provide the benefit of an application which is capable of setting up large batches of stem bounces quickly (BF2 Transcript 10:43-11:00).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheps in view of Vercellotti in further view of BF4.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Scheps and Vercellotti, as explained above teach the companion application of claim 16, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the bouncing module is configured to bounce wet and dry mixes sequentially.
BF4 teaches wherein an automated bouncing module is configured to bounce wet and dry mixes (Shown in BF4, Fig. 1, inserts (auxiliary channels) may either be force-enabled, or imported from snapshot settings. In order to bounce a set of dry stems, a user may take a snapshot with auxiliary channels disabled and use this as the basis for the stem bounce job…..Transcript 4:09-4:36) sequentially (A bounce pass may be saved to list using wet settings and dry settings sequentially, and selecting Bounce All in the automation module Bounce Factory will bounce both sequentially…..Transcript 0:10-0:14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Scheps and Vercellotti to incorporate the teachings of BF4 and provide wherein the automated bouncing module selectively mutes one or more auxiliary channels in the audio production program for at least one of the jobs to bounce a set of dry stems. This would provide the benefit of an application which is capable of efficiently providing solutions for client demands (BF4 Transcript 2:38-2:52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“What is the best script to use to wait for the Bounce To Mix window to close and then continue?,” posted on November 22, 2020 by user “John_Costello.” Retrieved from internet: <https://forum.soundflow.org/-3486/what-is-the-best-script-to-use-to-wait-for-the-bounce-to-mix-window-to-close-and-then-continue> discloses a method of automating bouncing for Pro Tools in SoundFlow, the platform on which Bounce Factory is designed for.
“Bounce Factory 5: Bouncing Mixes!,” uploaded on March 28, 2022 by user ““@andrewscheps6714”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUKWgDHVnMA> provides more evidence regarding the comparable functionality of Bounce Factory.
“Using Andrew Scheps Bounce Factory For Audio Post Production,” uploaded on April 8, 2022 by user “@ProductionExpert”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h8sf8CvXHA> provides more evidence regarding the comparable functionality of Bounce Factory.
“How to Use Bounce Butler with Logic Pro X,” uploaded on January 4, 2021 by user “_TheModernCreative”. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fBH3mkwWkw> teaches an automated system for bouncing mixes in Logic Pro X.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/Daniel R Sellers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694