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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 April 2020 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments center on Morsy not disclosing "cut[ting] out [a] first part of [a] first music piece and cut[ting] in [a] first part of [a] second music piece."
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there appears to be a difference in claim construction. Examiner notes that cutting out, fading, and the like are interchangeable, and both slowly and immediately reducing the volume of one particular track to 0% is effectively “cutting out” that track.
Additionally, many of the limitations have been re-mapped based on applicant’s amendments to the claims, and many of these re-mappings address the asserted shortcomings of Morsy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morsy et al. (hereinafter Morsy, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0335091).
Regarding Claim 1, Morsy discloses:
An acoustic device for mixing a first music piece and a second music piece (e.g. device of fig. 1 which implements the mixing detailed in the twelfth embodiment of Figs. 17 and 18, which may comprise any or all of the above-mentioned features; [0173]; in other words indicating that embodiment 12 encompasses all prior teachings of embodiments 1-11 for the purposes of the following rejection), wherein the first music piece (e.g. input audio file A) and the second music piece (e.g. input audio file B) each include a first part corresponding to a drum sound (e.g. Input audio files A and B both have multiple decomposed tracks, see First and Second corresponding to A, and Third and Fourth corresponding to B in Fig. 2; and further see specific decomposed tracks of A and B in Figs 17 and 18; and further note [0182] indicating audio input file B may be processed in the manner as input audio file A; further note drum track D1 decomposed from audio file A in Figs. 17, 18; which is also decomposed of B per [0182]’s teaching of processing B in the same manner as A) and a second part corresponding to a sound of a musical instrument other than the drum sound (e.g. any of bass, vocal, or complement tracks D2, D3, and D4 respectively, decomposed from audio file A in Figs. 17, 18; which are also decomposed of B per [0182]’s teaching of processing B in the same manner as A), the acoustic device comprising:
a playback controller (e.g. electronic control unit (ECU); [0033]) configured to:
cut out the first part of the first music piece and cut in the first part of the second music piece (e.g. see Fig. 11 in general, namely remix with a recombined output, for example, swap vocals of two songs, while maintaining instrumentals or vice versa; [0042]; note also swap control in [0082]; instrumental swap in [00156]); and
gradually change a tempo (e.g. note tempo matching processing which allows blending, including crossfades [or “gradually”] between two instrumental tracks of a song... allowing both songs or parts thereof to be audible at the same time; [0069]; note this done over a time period [0051]; which also indicates its not done instantaneously, but instead “gradually”) of the first part of the first music piece or a tempo of the first part of the second music piece so that the tempo of the first part of the first music piece and the tempo of the first part of the second music piece are synchronized when cutting out the first part of the first music piece and cutting in the first part of the second music piece (e.g. Fig. 11 in general, namely the example tempo matching of decomposed track 3, if necessary, to match that of the master track A, and beat phase matching for synchronization [0160]; note also cross fading instrumental tracks from song A to song B; [00148]).
Regarding Claim 5, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 1, Morsy further discloses:
further comprising a cross fader (e.g. cross-fading; see paras [0137][0138][00147]), wherein the playback controller is configured to determine a time when the cross fader starts moving from one end toward the other end thereof as a mixing start time (e.g. when the crossfader is used/operated by a user; [0080][0081]; note further that the volume adjustment can be user configurable if needed [0137] ).
Regarding Claim 6, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 1, Morsy further discloses:
wherein in a predetermined section comprising a mixing start time or a point after an elapse of a predetermined time from the mixing start time (e.g. user can start or stop playback by operation of play control element and/or change playback position; [0169]; note also using 2 seconds {required for processing}; para [0051]; starting frame and progression; [0118]), the playback controller is configured to play the second part of the first music piece at an original tempo of the first music piece, play the second part of the second music piece at an original tempo of the second music piece (e.g. tempo is synchronized w/ the master track; [0160] tempo matching done in real-time using crossfades allowing the songs to be audible at the same time and not disturb the flow of the music; [0069]; see further cross fading to achieve a more continuous flow of the music; [0148]), and switch the second part of the first music piece to the second part of the second music piece (e.g. note the ability for a user to individually switch ON or OFF a selected one of the decomposed tracks; [0153]; and swapping tracks; [0082]).
Regarding Claim 7, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 1, Morsy further discloses:
wherein the first part is a part at least corresponding to a bass drum sound of the drum sound (e.g. see exemplary indication of presence of certain instruments such as kick drums; [0092]; note further the detail disclosed regarding timber, particularly with regard to certain drum set sounds; [0013] – [0017], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, claim 8 is directed to the method corresponding to the device claimed in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above.
Regarding Claim 10, claim 10 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium corresponding to the device claimed in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 – 4, 9, 11, and 13 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsy et al. (hereinafter Morsy, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0335091). In view of Miyajima (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0118127).
Regarding Claim 2, Morsy discloses:
An acoustic device for mixing a first music piece and a second music piece (e.g. device of fig. 1 which implements the mixing detailed in the twelfth embodiment of Figs. 17 and 18, which may comprise any or all of the above-mentioned features; [0173]; in other words indicating that embodiment 12 encompasses all prior teachings of embodiments 1-11 for the purposes of the following rejection), wherein the first music piece (e.g. input audio file A) and the second music piece (e.g. input audio file B) each include a first part corresponding to a drum sound (e.g. Input audio files A and B both have multiple decomposed tracks, see First and Second corresponding to A, and Third and Fourth corresponding to B in Fig. 2; and further see specific decomposed tracks of A and B in Figs 17 and 18; and further note [0182] indicating audio input file B may be processed in the manner as input audio file A; further note drum track D1 decomposed from audio file A in Figs. 17, 18; which is also decomposed of B per [0182]’s teaching of processing B in the same manner as A) and a second part corresponding to a sound of a musical instrument other than the drum sound (e.g. any of bass, vocal, or complement tracks D2, D3, and D4 respectively, decomposed from audio file A in Figs. 17, 18; which are also decomposed of B per [0182]’s teaching of processing B in the same manner as A), the acoustic device comprising:
a playback controller (e.g. electronic control unit (ECU); [0033]) configured to:
gradually change a tempo (e.g. note tempo matching processing which allows blending, including crossfades [or “gradually”] between two instrumental tracks of a song... allowing both songs or parts thereof to be audible at the same time; [0069]; note this done over a time period [0051]; which also indicates its not done instantaneously, but instead “gradually”) of the first part of the first music piece to an (e.g. Fig. 11 in general, namely the example tempo matching of decomposed track 3, if necessary, to match that of the master track A, and beat phase matching for synchronization [0160]; note also cross fading instrumental tracks from song A to song B; [00148]).
Morsy fails to explicitly disclose that the change in tempo is done using an intermediate tempo between an original tempo of the first music piece and an original tempo of the second music piece.
In a related field of endeavor (e.g. audio processing and music composition) Miyajima discloses a method for gradually adjusting the tempos of musical sections being reproduced simultaneously; [0086] and Fig. 4.
Modifying Morsy’s tempo matching adjustment to incorporate the features of Miyajima discloses:
gradually change a tempo of the first part of the first music piece (e.g. Morsy’s tempo matching process referenced above, now modified by Miyajima, namely modifying various sections by gradually raising or lowering the tempo over time [0084]) to an intermediate tempo between an original tempo of the first music piece and an original tempo of the second music piece (see Miyajima’s Fig. 4 which details a ramp up of Music A’s tempo linearly to the desired tempo of Music B, in other words, the midpoint in the change denoted by the up and down arrow pointing to this spot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morsy to include the features of the tempo adjustment of Miyajima. Doing so would have provided Morsy with an improved technique of tempo adjustment that reduces the sense of discomfort of listeners during reproduction [0003], [0004], [0054]).
The combination of Morsy and Miyajima further disclose:
cut out the first part of the first music piece and cut in the first part of the second music piece (e.g. see Fig. 11 in general, namely remix with a recombined output, for example, swap vocals of two songs, while maintaining instrumentals or vice versa; [0042]; note also swap control in [0082]; instrumental swap in [00156] all of Morsy); when the tempo of the first part of the first music piece becomes the intermediate tempo (e.g. Morsy’s reproduction and tempo matching, now being based on the gradual adjustment’s of Miyajima detailed in Fig. 4); and
gradually change a tempo of the first part of the second music piece from the intermediate tempo to the original tempo of the second music piece (e.g. continuing to adjust the tempo of Morsy until it meets the requisite level as detailed by Fig. 4 of Miyajima).
Regarding Claim 3, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 1, Morsy fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the playback controller is configured to gradually shift the tempo of the first part of the second music piece to an original tempo of the second music piece after the tempo of the first part of the first music piece and the tempo of the first part of the second music piece are synchronized.
In a related field of endeavor (e.g. audio processing and music composition) Miyajima discloses a method for gradually adjusting the tempos of musical sections being reproduced simultaneously; [0086] and Fig. 4.
Modifying Morsy’s tempo matching adjustment to incorporate the features of Miyajima discloses:
wherein the playback controller is configured to gradually shift the tempo of the first part of the second music piece to an original tempo of the second music piece after the tempo of the first part of the first music piece and the tempo of the first part of the second music piece are synchronized (e.g. Morsy’s tempo matching process referenced above, now modified by Miyajima, namely modifying various sections by gradually raising or lowering the tempo over time [0084] and subsequently continuing to adjust the tempo of Morsy until it meets the requisite level as detailed by Fig. 4 of Miyajima, namely a ramp up of Music A’s tempo linearly to the desired tempo of Music B, in other words, from the midpoint in the change denoted by the up and down arrow pointing to this spot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morsy to include the features of the tempo adjustment of Miyajima. Doing so would have provided Morsy with an improved technique of tempo adjustment that reduces the sense of discomfort of listeners during reproduction [0003], [0004], [0054]).
Regarding Claim 4, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 3, the combination further discloses:
wherein the playback controller is configured to align a playback position of the first part of the second music piece with a playback position of the second part of the second music piece (e.g. after tempo matching of decomposed track, the beat phase of the decomposed track is shifted [“aligned”] in a synchronization step to match the beat phase of Track A; [0160] of Morsy) after gradually shifting the tempo of the first part of the second music piece to the original tempo of the second music piece (e.g. tempo is synchronized w/ the master track; [0160] tempo matching done in real-time using crossfades allowing the songs to be audible at the same time and not disturb the flow of the music; [0069] of Morsy, now modified by Miyajima, namely subsequently continuing to adjust the tempo of Morsy until it meets the requisite level as detailed by Fig. 4 of Miyajima, namely a ramp up of Music A’s tempo linearly to the desired tempo of Music B, in other words, from the midpoint in the change denoted by the up and down arrow pointing to this spot).
Regarding Claim 9, claim 9 is directed to the method corresponding to the device claimed in claim 2 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above.
Regarding Claim 11, claim 11 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium corresponding to the device claimed in claim 2 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above.
Regarding Claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same grounds as stated above regarding the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same grounds as stated above regarding the rejections of claims 2 + 5.
Regarding Claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same grounds as stated above regarding the rejections of claims 2 + 6.
Regarding Claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same grounds as stated above regarding the rejections of claims 2 + 7.
Regarding Claim 17, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 1, Morsy fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the playback controller is configured to gradually change the tempo of the first part of the second music piece played at an original tempo of the first music piece to an original tempo of the second music piece after cutting in the first part of the second music piece.
In a related field of endeavor (e.g. audio processing and music composition) Miyajima discloses a method for gradually adjusting the tempos of musical sections being reproduced simultaneously; [0086] and Fig. 4.
Modifying Morsy’s tempo matching adjustment to incorporate the features of Miyajima discloses:
wherein the playback controller is configured to gradually change the tempo of the first part of the second music piece played at an original tempo of the first music piece to an original tempo of the second music piece after cutting in the first part of the second music piece (e.g. Morsy’s tempo matching process referenced above, now modified by Miyajima, namely modifying various sections by gradually raising or lowering the tempo over time [0084] and subsequently continuing to adjust the tempo of Morsy until it meets the requisite level as detailed by Fig. 4 of Miyajima, namely a ramp up of Music A’s tempo linearly to the desired tempo of Music B, in other words, from the midpoint in the change denoted by the up and down arrow pointing to this spot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morsy to include the features of the tempo adjustment of Miyajima. Doing so would have provided Morsy with an improved technique of tempo adjustment that reduces the sense of discomfort of listeners during reproduction [0003], [0004], [0054]).
Regarding Claim 18, in addition to the elements stated above regarding claim 1, Morsy fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the playback controller is configured to gradually change the tempo of the first part of the first music piece to an original tempo of the second music piece before cutting out the first part of the first music piece and cutting in the first part of the second music piece.
In a related field of endeavor (e.g. audio processing and music composition) Miyajima discloses a method for gradually adjusting the tempos of musical sections being reproduced simultaneously; [0086] and Fig. 4.
Modifying Morsy’s tempo matching adjustment to incorporate the features of Miyajima discloses:
wherein the playback controller is configured to gradually change the tempo of the first part of the first music piece to an original tempo of the second music piece before cutting out the first part of the first music piece and cutting in the first part of the second music piece (e.g. Morsy’s tempo matching process referenced above, now modified by Miyajima, namely modifying various sections by gradually raising or lowering the tempo over time [0084] and subsequently continuing to adjust the tempo of Morsy until it meets the requisite level as detailed by Fig. 4 of Miyajima, namely a ramp up of Music A’s tempo linearly to the desired tempo of Music B, in other words, from the midpoint in the change denoted by the up and down arrow pointing to this spot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morsy to include the features of the tempo adjustment of Miyajima. Doing so would have provided Morsy with an improved technique of tempo adjustment that reduces the sense of discomfort of listeners during reproduction [0003], [0004], [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew C Flanders whose telephone number is (571)272-7516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
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.
/ANDREW C FLANDERS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights