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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for application 18/557,330 filed on 10/01/2025. Please note claims 1-11 remain in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026, page 6, with regards to independent claims 1, 7, and 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, last paragraph onward, applicant contends that Morsy does not teach or suggest an acoustic device in which a cross fader controls the transition (and respective volumes) of a first and second music piece, and instead only teaches wherein a transition position corresponds to a time within a predetermined time interval.
While Figs. 3a-3c as referenced by the applicant do show wherein a transition position corresponds to times within a predetermined time interval, the disclosure of Morsy provides multiple teaching wherein instead of corresponding to time, the function of a transition curve (including those of Figs. 3a-3c) may instead correspond to a position of transition controller (crossfader) (24) as it moves from a left end to a right end. Such teachings may be found in sections ¶[0075] line 1 – ¶0076], line 6, ¶[0082], lines 15-20, and ¶[0090], lines 1-9, cited in further detail in the below rejection of claim 1.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 1-11 (regarding the use of a crossfading cut curve) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsy et al (hereinafter Morsy), US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0294567 (previously cited) in view of Morsy (hereinafter Morsy B), US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0390938 (previously cited) with further evidence from “Automix crossfader option that fades out the end but doesn't fade in the beginning?” [online]. Algoriddim.com Support Forum, 2020 (hereinafter Algoriddim).
Regarding claims 1, Morsy discloses an acoustic device (Device (10) is capable of outputting an (acoustic) signal for use by a speaker.....¶[0073], lines 1-6) comprising:
a cross fader (Shown in Fig. 1, transition controller (24) is used to transition from a first song to a second song, cross fading between them.....¶[0075], lines 1-5) configured to be operated (moved by a user.....¶[0075], line 2) between one end and another end (The controller moves from a first end point to a second end point.....¶[0075], lines 3-5) and to adjust a sound volume balance (The progress of the transition (the balance between the first and second song) is controlled (adjusted) by the controller.....¶[0076], lines 4-6) between a first music piece played through a first channel (A first input track (Song A) received at a first input unit (channel).....¶[0079], lines 1-2) and a second music piece played through a second channel (A second input track (Song A) received at a second input unit (channel).....¶[0079], lines 1-2);
a setting unit (A transition unit (44) capable of storing settings.....¶[0082], lines 4, 15-17) configured to set a mixing curve (The transition unit stores transition functions (mixing curves, examples of which are shown in Figs. 3a-3c) as settings.....¶[0082], lines 15-17) on each of a plurality of parts (Individual mixing curves are stored for multiple decomposed signals (a plurality of parts).....¶[0082], lines 15-17) of the first music piece and the second music piece (Shown in Fig. 2, transition functions DA, VA, HA, DB, VB, HB correspond to the drums, vocals, and harmonics of songs A and B (the first and second music pieces) received from decomposition unit (40).....¶[0082], lines 15-17) in accordance with a position of the cross fader (The volume levels of each transition function (mixing curve) may be set in accordance with the transition controller position.....¶[0082], lines 15-20, reiterated in ¶[0076], lines 1-4) ; and
a playback controller (A playback unit (42).....¶[0082], line 2) configured to control the sound volume balance of each of the plurality of parts (The playback controller utilizes the aforementioned transition unit to recombine the decomposed signals (plurality of parts) at the specified volume levels (controlling the sound volume balance).....¶[0082], lines 4-7) in accordance with the mixing curve (This process is performed taking into account (in accordance) the plurality of mixing curves (and how they correspond to the position of the cross fader).....¶[0082], lines 20-22),
wherein the plurality of parts comprise a vocal sound part (Shown in Fig. 3, mixing curves “VA” and “VB” control volume of decomposed vocal signals (sound parts) of the first and second songs.....¶[0087], lines 1-2), and
when the cross fader is operated (The curves of Figs. 3a-3c may correspond to the position of the transition controller (cross fader).....¶[0090], lines 4-6) from the one end to the other end (from the left end position to the right end position.....¶[0090], line 9) to switch the first music piece to the second music piece (Shown in Figs. 3a-3c and detailed in ¶[0088], the transition switches from the first to the second music piece), the playback controller is configured to lower a sound volume level of the vocal sound part of the first music piece (Shown in Fig. 3b, the volume of vocal part VA drops from 100% to 0% as the transition position moves from T1 to T2) as the cross fader moves from the one end toward the other end (T1 and T2 correspond to a left and a center (towards the other end) position of the controller.....¶[0090], lines 1-6) and fade in and play the vocal sound part of the second music piece (Shown in Fig. 3b, the volume of vocal part VB rises from 0% to 100% as the transition position moves from T2 to T3, corresponding to a middle and right position of the transition controller) at an interval between words of lyrics (Transitions may be set to occur between song parts (e.g. verses comprised of lyrics).....¶[0041], lines 1-4, ¶[0039], line 11), detected through music analysis processing (Junctions between song parts may be detected through audio signal analysis (music analysis processing).....¶[0039], lines 1-6).
Morsy fails to explicitly disclose wherein the mixing curve of the second music piece is that of a cut-in, but does disclose wherein the slope, shape, and offset of mixing curves may be adjusted by a user, and any curve may be assigned to any decomposed signal (including the vocal signal) by said user (¶[0043], lines 20-24).
Morsy B discloses a crossfader application analogous to the crossfader of Morsy wherein a cut type mixing curve (¶[0079], line 30 (the last line)) may be assigned to a decomposed vocal cross fader (¶[0079], lines 24-30).
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 Morsy by Morsy B to provide wherein the transition curves available for a user to assign to a vocal transition of the second music piece to include that of a cut curve. Such a modification would provide the benefit of crossfading options and techniques found desirable by DJs/artists as evidenced by Algoriddim, Pg. 1, lines 8-9.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Morsy and Morsy B teaches the acoustic device of claim 1, as explained above.
Morsy additionally discloses wherein the plurality of parts of the first music piece and the second music piece comprise sub-parts subdivided therefrom (music pieces, including Songs A and B of the reference, may be divided into parts as cited above, and those parts may inherently be subdivided into subparts (e.g. a beginning sub-part and end sub-part)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Morsy and Morsy B teaches the acoustic device of claim 1, as explained above.
Morsy additionally discloses wherein the setting unit is configured to set a first mixing curve on a first part of the plurality of parts and set a second mixing curve different from the first mixing curve on a second part different from the first part (Shown in Fig. 3a-c, the transition functions (mixing curves) of a drum part (a first part) and a harmonic part (a second part) are different.....¶[0088], lines 1-5)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morsy and Morsy B teaches the acoustic device of claim 4, as explained above.
Morsy additionally discloses wherein the sound volume balances of the first and the second mixing curves change at different rates (Shown in Fig. 3a-c, the harmonic part curve (HA) drops from 100% to 0% at 4 times the rate of the drum curve (DA)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Morsy and Morsy B teaches the acoustic device of claim 4, as explained above.
Morsy additionally discloses wherein the first mixing curve is a curve showing that a sound volume of one of the first and second music pieces changes a rate different from the other of the first and second music pieces (Shown in Fig. 3c, the volume of the first music piece harmonics part (HA) drops sharply as compared to the gradual rise of the second music piece harmonics part (HB).
Claim 7 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the functions recited are the same as those of claims 1, and are similarly taught by the combination Morsy and Morsy B as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Morsy additionally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (A computer may run a software application stored on read-only-memory.....¶[0063], lines 5-8) storing a program causing a computer to operate as an acoustic device (A software application may allow a computer to perform the acoustic device functions detailed below…..¶[0063], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Morsy and Morsy B teaches the acoustic device of claim 1, as explained above
Morsy additionally teaches wherein when the first music piece is switched to the second music piece (Shown in Figs. 3a-3c and detailed in ¶[0088], the transition switches from the first to the second music piece), the playback controller is configured to fade in and play the vocal sound part of the second music piece (Shown in Fig. 3b, the volume of vocal part VB rises from 0% to 100% as the transition position moves from T2 to T3, corresponding to a middle and right position of the transition controller) at an interval between words of lyrics (Transitions may be set to occur between song parts (e.g. verses comprised of lyrics).....¶[0041], lines 1-4, ¶[0039], line 11), detected through music analysis processing (Junctions between song parts may be detected through audio signal analysis (music analysis processing).....¶[0039], lines 1-6).
Morsy fails to explicitly disclose wherein the mixing curve of the second music piece is that of a cut-in, but does disclose wherein the slope, shape, and offset of mixing curves may be adjusted by a user, and any curve may be assigned to any decomposed signal (including the vocal signal) by said user (¶[0043], lines 20-24).
Morsy B discloses a crossfader application wherein a cut type mixing curve (¶[0079], line 30 (the last line)) may be assigned to a decomposed vocal cross fader (¶[0079], lines 24-30), analogous to the cross fader of Morsy.
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 Morsy and Morsy B further by Morsy B to provide wherein the transition curves available for a user to assign to a vocal transition of the second music piece to include that of a cut curve. Such a modification would provide the benefit of crossfading options and techniques found desirable by DJs/artists as evidenced by Algoriddim, Pg. 1, lines 8-9.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsy in view of Morsy B, in further view of Matsunaga et al, (hereinafter Matsunaga), US-PG-PUB 2012/0109348 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morsy and Morsy B teaches the acoustic device of claim 4, as explained above.
This combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of parts at least comprise a sub-part corresponding to a bass drum sound of a drum sound.
Matsunaga teaches a cross-fading mixer where, as shown in Fig. 2, a plurality of parts (Bands 1-8) comprise a sub-part corresponding to a bass drum sound of a drum sound (Band 2) (¶[0078], lines 9-15).
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 Morsy and Morsy B to incorporate the teachings of Matsunaga, and provide wherein the plurality of parts at least comprises a sub-part corresponding to a bass drum sound of a drum sound. This would provide the benefit where a user may omit sounds based on frequency bands (Matsunaga, ¶[0079], lines 4-7).
Conclusion
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
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694