DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/1/2024.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1-3, drawn to a data modification method of controlling sound, classified in G10H1/0041.
II. Claims 4-11, drawn to a data modification method of controlling sound, classified in G10H1/36.
III. Claims 12-13, drawn to a data modification method of controlling sound, classified in H04R2460/01.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I-III are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are have material different functions of modifying…sound control data …, in a state where the second modification mode is selected to be applied (Group I), detecting a plurality of beat positions (Group II), and recording sound control data defining timing information of a sound generation based on input performance information/ playing back performance sounds based on the modified sound control data (Group III).
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter (they involve mutually exclusive limitations). Group I requires “modifying the sound control data by correcting the timing information based on beat positions according to a predetermined tempo, in a state where the second modification mode is selected to be applied”, which isn’t require in Groups II-III. Group II requires “detecting a plurality of beat positions from sound control data defining timing information of sounds recorded with a predetermined tempo”, which isn’t required in Groups I and III. And Group III requires “recording sound control data defining timing information of a sound generation based on input performance information”, “after a stop of the performance recording is instructed” and “and playing back performance sounds based on the modified sound control data”, which aren’t required in Groups I-II.
Furthermore, there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Separate classification thereof: As explained above, Groups I-III are classified differently. This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
A different field of search: The mutually exclusive limitations mention above for Groups I-III would require employing different search queries. Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Richard Schachner on 11/5/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-3. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims Status
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1, 4 and 12 are independent.
Claim 1-3 are currently being examined.
Claims 4-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Homburg; Clemens (hereinafter Homburg – US 20110011243 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Homburg teaches:
A data modification method of controlling sound, the method comprising:
providing a selection user interface that allows a user to select a modification mode to be applied to sound control data defining timing information of a sound generation from among a plurality of modification modes including a first modification mode and a second modification mode; (see ¶ 40 and fig. 2. The paragraph describes a user interface where a "mode selector" (like a drop-down menu) allows a user to choose one of several "modification modes" (speed only, speed and pitch, or tuning) to be applied to sound control data, illustrating a typical selection UI flow. This UI facilitates user choice regarding how sound data parameters like tempo, pitch, and tuning are modified.)
modifying the sound control data by correcting the timing information and adding correction information according to an amount of correction of the timing information in a predetermined data section to the predetermined data section, in a state where the first modification mode is selected to be applied; (see ¶ 42 and fig. 3. The paragraph describes common DAW time-stretching methods, e.g., to a new tempo, like the phase vocoder, which alters an audio signal's duration without changing its pitch by analyzing and modifying its time-frequency properties. This process reflects "modifying sound control data by correcting timing information" and "adding correction information" to specific data sections)
and modifying the sound control data by correcting the timing information based on beat positions according to a predetermined tempo, in a state where the second modification mode is selected to be applied. (the abovementioned modification modes, may include “speed only” and “speed and pitch”, that is, in more than one more, a tempo/speed can be adjusted [in a state where the second modification mode is selected to be applied]. ¶ 33 also mentions that “In order to change the tempo of the MIDI file, the signal clock of the relevant MIDI data is changed”. Tempo changes in a MIDI track are achieved by altering the signal clock, which realigns MIDI events to the new beat positions without affecting the pitch of the sound samples.)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Homburg further teaches:
further comprising:
providing a recording user interface that allows the user to set a tempo and instruct performance recording; (tempo is set using floating window control 304, ¶¶ 40-41 and fig. 3. Also see round record toggle button in fig. 3)
providing beat information with the set tempo after a start of the performance recording is instructed; (upon recording [after a start of the performance recording is instructed], commands for various MIDI input devices are received [beat information] and recorded, ¶¶ 19, 21-22 and 41 and figs. 1 and 3. MIDI contains both explicit data (tempo, time signature) and implicit note timing data, all of which provide crucial beat information for music software and hardware.)
recording the sound control data based on performance information input while providing the beat information; (the MIDI information is recorded on MIDI tracks, ¶ 33, when the commands are received during the recording, ¶ 41)
and providing the selection user interface to allow the user to select the modification mode to be applied for the recorded sound control data, after a stop of the performance recording is instructed. (see ¶ 41 and fig. 3. The user can interact with “recorded” music performance data [after a stop of the performance recording is instructed] by setting a desired tempo reference and then applying a specific modification mode, such as the "speed only" mode, to adjust the tempo of all tracks within a DAW. This adjustment is performed using a graphical user interface where the user can use buttons or manually input a percentage to reach a desired tempo in BPM.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homburg (US 20110011243 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garland; Jacob B. et al. (hereinafter Garland – US 20130060572 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Homburg further teaches:
wherein:
the plurality of modification modes include a third modification mode, (a third modification mode may include a tuning mode 306, ¶ 48)
and the data modification method further comprises modifying the sound control data by correcting the timing of specified predetermined sound (individually [specified predetermined sound] time stretch [modifying the sound control data by correcting the timing] an audio file for tempo, tempo and pitch, ¶ 31)
Homburg also teaches that those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that other modes and combinations can be implemented, as well as other means to select the modes can be implemented, ¶ 40.
Homburg does not appear to expressly teach, but Garland teaches:
and correcting the timing information for a plurality of sounds following the specified predetermined sound, in a state where the third modification mode is selected to be applied. (during editing of an object, a user can adjust a single item, and applying a forward ripple edit to also adjust items succeeding that item, ¶¶ 26 and 80It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Garland to Homburg one or more of the modes of Homburg can be combined with ripple edit mode of Garland [in a state where the third modification mode is selected to be applied]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Homburg to include and correcting the timing information for a plurality of sounds following the specified predetermined sound, in a state where the third modification mode is selected to be applied, as taught by Garland.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the scalability and efficiency of the method by combining known editing modes, Homburg, ¶ 40, including ripple editing which is inherently more efficient for a specific set of editing tasks because it automates the process of adjusting the entire timeline to accommodate changes to a single item on the timeline, Garland ¶ 26 and 80.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Majors; Robert E. US 20220148615 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing audio composition software such as a digital audio workstation, ¶ 2, for editing media, ¶ 5, e.g., used for audio correction, ¶ 42.
Chapman; Keith L. et al. US 20120294457 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing an audio system, Abstract, with different operational modes, access to menus for selecting and editing functions, and configuration of audio system 32, a programmable control panel 54 of audio system 32 may also include LEDs as indicators for sync/tap, tempo, save, record, and power functions, ¶ 56.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171