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
Applicant have amended the claims as follows:
Amended: Claims 1, 11, and 12
Cancelled: None
New: Claims 13 and 14
Therefore claims 1 – 14 are now pending in this application. Please see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection which was necessitated by applicant amendments to the claim.
Applicant argues: Morsy does not teach or suggest an audio device for playing a music piece including, "a unit sound extracting module configured to extract a unit sound for a sound included in [a] second part[of the music piece,] and a second playing module configured to play the unit sound, in at least one segment of the music piece and in parallel with playing of [a] first part [by a first playing module], at a position that is different from a prearranged play position of at least one sound included in the second part, wherein the second part comprises a drum instrument sound," as required by claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant in that Morsy as shown below in the rejection and reiterated here does teach all the limitations of claim 1. Morsy discloses a unit sound extracting module (Fig 1, 26) configured to extract a unit sound (Vocals, Drums and Harmonics) for a sound (see first and/or second audio track) included in the second part (first song audio input data); and a second playing module (Fig 1, 16) configured to play (Fig 2, 60A) the unit sound (vocals, drums, harmonic), in at least one segment (52A – shows Song A in segments over a period of time) of the music piece (Song A) and in parallel with playing of the first part (FIG 2, shows DJ instrument 46 has a crossfader 62 that the user can use to crossfade between song A and B causing them to overlap and play in parallel), at a position that is different from a prearranged play position (FIG 2, 52A & 52B can be played from different positions in which 52A is playing at time 2:37 with a combination of vocals, harmonic & drums and 52B is playing at a time of 0:56 with only vocals) of at least one sound included in the second part (FIG 2, shows that a combination of sounds are being played to include vocals, harmonic and drums), wherein the second part comprises a drum instrument sound (FIG 2, 56A – shows that drum is one of the selected elements).
Since applicant arguments were not persuasive, please see rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Morsy (US Publication 2022/0199056).
Regarding claims 1, 11 & 12, Morsy discloses: An audio device for playing a music piece (See Fig. 1 #44), the music piece comprising a first part (See Fig. 1 #18, second song audio input data) and a second part (See Fig. 1 #16, first song audio input data) that are acoustically separable from each other, the audio device comprising:
a first playing module (FIG 1, 18 – second song input unit) configured to play the first part (second song audio input data); and
a unit sound extracting module (Fig 1, 26) configured to extract a unit sound (Vocals, Drums and Harmonics) for a sound (see first and/or second audio track) included in the second part (first song audio input data); and
a second playing module (Fig 1, 16) configured to play (Fig 2, 60A) the unit sound (vocals, drums, harmonic), in at least one segment (52A – shows Song A in segments over a period of time) of the music piece (Song A) and in parallel with playing of the first part (FIG 2, shows DJ instrument 46 has a crossfader 62 that the user can use to crossfade between song A and B causing them to overlap and play in parallel), at a position that is different from a prearranged play position (FIG 2, 52A & 52B can be played from different positions in which 52A is playing at time 2:37 with a combination of vocals, harmonic & drums and 52B is playing at a time of 0:56 with only vocals) of at least one sound included in the second part (FIG 2, shows that a combination of sounds are being played to include vocals, harmonic and drums),
wherein the second part comprises a drum instrument sound (FIG 2, 56A – shows that drum is one of the selected elements).
Regarding claim 2, Morsy discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses further comprising a selecting module configured to select the at least one sound from sounds included in the second part (See Fig. 2 #46 user control section, #56 on the user control selection can select different parts of the songs, including vocals, drums and harmonic).
Regarding claim 3, Morsy discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses wherein, in a first segment of the music piece (See Fig. 2 #52B displays time of a song, so the beginning could be a first segment for example), the second playing module plays the second part in a first temporal pattern (See paragraph [0069], mentions a cue control push button that can store a current playback position and can play it on a second operation of the button, this can include playing a drum track in that same segment), and in a second segment of the music piece (See Fig. 2 #52B displays time of a song, so the end of the song could be a second segment for example), the second playing module plays the at least one sound included in the second part at the position that is different from the prearranged play position (See paragraph [0069], mentions a cue control push button that can store a current playback position and can play it on a second operation of the button, so one could play the harmonic at a prearranged play position if chosen), the prearranged play position being based on the first temporal pattern (See paragraph [0069], the cue control button can store the first temporal pattern for the purpose of being played elsewhere).
Regarding claim 4, Morsy discloses the system of claim 3 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses wherein, in the second segment the second playing module plays the at least one sound in a second temporal pattern (See Fig. 1 #36, paragraph [0077] mentions applying the loop control to a decomposed track), the second temporal pattern being different from the first temporal pattern (See paragraph [0069], one could store a harmonic temporal pattern from another segment to play in the second segment, making sure it is not the stored harmonic as the first).
Regarding claim 5, Morsy discloses the system of claim 4 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses wherein, in a third segment between the first segment and the second segment (See Fig. 2 #52B displays time of a song, so the middle of the song could be a third segment for example), the second playing module causes a cross-fade between the at least one sound to be played in the first temporal pattern and the at least one sound to be played in the second temporal pattern (This seems to talk about changing the tempo or bpm of the song which Fig. 3 #70 does, as explained by paragraph [0075], also mentions using the transport control to adapt to a proper timing to match the beat of the song).
Regarding claim 6, Morsy discloses the system of claim 5 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses further comprising a progression rate setting module (See fig. 1 #36) configured to set a progression rate of the cross- fade according to an operation amount of an operator (See fig. 3 #70, controls the duration/speed/fade of the tempo, allowing the user to change the tempo and be able to fade into it with proper timing as explained in paragraph [0075]), wherein a length of the third segment is dynamically determined according to a time variation of the progression rate (This would be obvious; if one were to turn the tempo or bpm from 100 bpm to 120 bpm, the song would go faster and the length would become shorter, if the bpm would be slowed down from 100 bpm to 80 bpm, the song would be longer in length due to it becoming slower).
Regarding claim 7, Morsy discloses the system of claim 5 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses wherein the at least one sound comprises a first sound and a second sound (See Fig. 2 #56, using the user control selection, the harmonics (first sound) and drums (second sound)) and in the third segment (See Fig. 2 #52B displays time of a song, so the middle of the song could be a third segment for example), a cross-fade of the first sound is started at a first time point (Change in duration using the button found in Fig. 3 #70 can begin at time 0:00), and a cross-fade of the second sound is started at a second time point (Change in duration using the button found in Fig. 3 #70 can begin at time 1:00), the second time point being later than the first time point (1:00 is a later point than 0:00).
Regarding claim 8, Morsy discloses the system of claim 5 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses wherein the at least one sound comprises a first sound and a second sound (See Fig. 2 #56, using the user control selection, the harmonics (first sound) and drums (second sound)), and in the third segment (See Fig. 2 #52B displays time of a song, so the middle of the song could be a third segment for example), a cross-fade of the first sound ends at a third time point (Change in duration using the button found in Fig. 3 #70 can begin at time 2:00), and a cross-fade of the second sound ends at a fourth time point (Change in duration using the button found in Fig. 3 #70 can begin at time 3:00), the fourth time point being later than the third time point (2:00 is a later point than 3:00).
Regarding claim 9, Morsy discloses the system of claim 7 as discussed above, in addition, Morsy discloses further comprising a selecting module configured to individually select the first sound and the second sound from sounds comprised in the second part (See Fig. 2 #56, using the user control selection, we can individually select the harmonics (first sound) and drums (second sound)).
With regards to Claim 13, Morsy discloses: wherein the second playing module (FIG 1, 16) is configured to play (60) the unit sound at the position (Song A being played at 2:37 with a combined 56 vocals, harmonics and drums and Song B being played at 0:56 with vocals only) that is different from the prearranged play position (the times are different from prearranged start positions as well as if the crossfader 62 is being used) so as to change a style of the second part of the music piece (using the crossfader 62 changes the style of the second part of the music piece; see Paragraph [0071]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsy (US Publication 2022/0199056) in view of Serlectic (US Patent 8,785,760).
Regarding claim 10, Morsy fails to disclose at least one sound comprises at least one of a sound of a bass drum, a sound of a snare, or a sound of a hi-hat.
Serlectic discloses at least one sound comprises at least one of a sound of a bass drum, a sound of a snare, or a sound of a hi-hat (See column 14 lines 63-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of at least one sound comprises at least one of a sound of a bass drum, a sound of a snare, or a sound of a hi-hat in Serlectic’s invention as taught by Morsy’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would have been to have different types of percussion (See column 14 lines 63-67).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsy (US Publication 2022/0199056) in view of Serlectic (US Patent 8,785,760) in further view of Zambrano Perozo US Publication 2016/0124629 A1.
With regards to Claim 14, Morsy discloses: the second playing module (Morsy’s invention Fig 1, 16) is configured to play the unit sound (Vocals, Drums and Harmonics) at the position (Song A being played at 2:37 with a combined 56 vocals, harmonics and drums and Song B being played at 0:56 with vocals only) that is different from the prearranged play position (the times are different from prearranged start positions as well as if the crossfader 62 is being used) so as to change a style of the second part of the music piece (using the crossfader 62 changes the style of the second part of the music piece; see Paragraph [0071]).
Morsy fails to disclose: wherein the unit sound includes unit sounds of a bass drum, a hi-hat, and a snare,
Serlectic discloses: wherein the unit sound includes unit sounds of a bass drum, a hi-hat, and a snare (See column 14 lines 63-67), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of wherein the unit sound includes unit sounds of a bass drum, a hi-hat, and a snare in Morsy’s invention as taught by Serlectic’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would have been to have different types of percussion (See column 14 lines 63-67).
Morsy in view of Serlectic fails to disclose: music piece to one of a house style, a trap style, and a breakbeats style.
Zambrano Perozo discloses: music piece to one of a house style, a trap style, and a breakbeats style (Paragraph [0037] – music styles such as house, trap, breakbeat, club, techno, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of music piece to one of a house style, a trap style, and a breakbeats style in Morsy’s modified invention as taught by Zambrano Perozo’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would have been so that the user has access to uninterrupted play of different styles of music that is also customizable (see Paragraph [0081]).
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 CAROLYN R. EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 5:00am - 3:00pm (EST).
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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692