DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker et al. (2017/0236504) [hereinafter “Brooker”] in view of Compton (US PGPUB No. 2008/0295672).
As per claim 1, Brooker teaches a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a new song comprised of multiple tracks (Abstract, analyzing individual components of an audio track including stems/samples, voice, instruments, etc. see [0027]-[0028]); creating, by the one or more processors, a first set of hashes based on the multiple tracks ([0040], audio file has a set of hashes created for comparison, i.e. fingerprinting); selecting, by the one or more processors, data associated with a copyrighted song ([0037], compared audio files to determine original or copyrighted) in a database, the data including a second set of hashes associated with the copyrighted song ([0040], audio file has a set of hashes created for comparison, i.e. fingerprinting); performing a comparison, by the one or more processors, of a first subset of the first set of hashes to a second subset of the second set of hashes ([0040], comparing a hash set with hash set from database); determining, by the one or more processors and based on the comparison, a similarity index ([0040], determining a similarity value and seeing if it exceeds a threshold); indicating, by the one or more processors, a similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song based on the similarity index ([0040], matching the two audio files).
Brooker does not explicitly teach receiving, by the one or more processors, a selection to modify the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song; and modifying, by the one or more processors, the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song. However, Brooker can be modified to teach receiving, by the one or more processors, a selection to modify the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song ([0005], remixers can add, remove or change an original work into something new using the stem/sample system see [0026]); and modifying, by the one or more processors, the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song ([0026], remixers can use the various tools of stem/sample system to adjust their new song to reduce its similarity to a copyrighted song).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brooker to teach, receiving, by the one or more processors, a selection to modify the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song; and modifying, by the one or more processors, the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song, to allow remixers the ability to adjust their remixed songs to reduce its similarity to an already copyrighted song.
Brooker does not explicitly teach modifying the new song into a standardized format in which relationships between notes in a note sequence are preserved so as to cause intervals between the notes to remain consistent regardless of a specific pitch of each of the notes or the new song's key. Compton teaches modifying the new song into a standardized format in which relationships between notes in a note sequence are preserved so as to cause intervals between the notes to remain consistent regardless of a specific pitch of each of the notes or the new song's key (Abstract, maintaining the tempo of a song regardless of changes to the pitch).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brooker with the teachings of Compton, modifying the new song into a standardized format in which relationships between notes in a note sequence are preserved so as to cause intervals between the notes to remain consistent regardless of a specific pitch of each of the notes or the new song's key, to allow remixers the ability to adjust their remixed songs to reduce its similarity to an already copyrighted song.
As per claim 7, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker and Compton in view of Silverstein (US PGPUB No. 2025/0191558).
As per claim 2, the combination of Brooker and Compton teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Brooker and Compton does not explicitly teach generating, by a generative artificial intelligence, at least one track of the multiple tracks of the new song. Silverstein teaches generating, by a generative artificial intelligence, at least one track of the multiple tracks of the new song ([0053]-[0054], AI assisted generation of a musical track, ex. Instrument, in a multi-track song).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brooker and Compton with the teachings of Silverstein, generating, by a generative artificial intelligence, at least one track of the multiple tracks of the new song, to allow anyone to generate audio that can be used with original content to create new songs.
As per claim 3, the combination of Brooker and Compton teaches the method of claim 1, creating, for the particular track of the multiple tracks, a hash for individual note sequences included in the particular track ([0040], hashing vocal or instrument content of a song which all include note sequences).
The combination of Brooker and Compton does not explicitly teach deconstructing the new song into the multiple tracks; and selecting a particular track of the multiple tracks. Silverstein teaches deconstructing the new song into the multiple tracks ([0015] and [0035], multitrack recording and editing allows for constructing and deconstructing a song into multiple tracks) see also ([0891], separating song into multiple files representing sub-groups of sounds, i.e. tracks); and selecting a particular track of the multiple tracks ([0015] and [0035], multitrack system allows for selecting a particular track for editing – which would be combined with the hashing taught in Brooker).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brooker and Compton with the teachings of Silverstein, deconstructing the new song into the multiple tracks; and selecting a particular track of the multiple tracks, to allow the protection and identification of individual parts of a song that may be used in remixes and other audio songs.
As per claim 4, the combination of Brooker, Compton and Silverstein teaches the method of claim 3, wherein individual note sequences included in the particular track comprise at least 8 consecutive notes (Silverstein; [0050], plugin can generate note sequences of any length).
As per claim 8, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 9, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claims 3 and 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, the combination of Brooker and Compton teaches the server of claim 7.
The combination of Brooker and Compton does not explicitly teach wherein modifying the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song comprises: determining that a particular track of the multiple tracks of the new song is similar to a copyrighted track of the copyrighted song; and automatically modifying one or more note sequences in the particular track, the modifying including: adding one or more notes in the particular track; deleting one or more notes in the particular track; modifying a pitch of one or more notes in the particular track; modifying a duration of one or more notes in the particular track; or any combination thereof. Silverstein teaches wherein modifying the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song comprises: determining that a particular track of the multiple tracks of the new song is similar to a copyrighted track of the copyrighted song; and automatically modifying one or more note sequences in the particular track, the modifying including: adding one or more notes in the particular track; deleting one or more notes in the particular track; modifying a pitch of one or more notes in the particular track; modifying a duration of one or more notes in the particular track; or any combination thereof ([0059] and [0066], AI generated content that automatically adds/changes notes, pitches, rhythm, etc. – this would be combined with the hash fingerprint similarity comparisons taught in Brooker).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brooker and Compton with the teachings of Silverstein, wherein modifying the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song comprises: determining that a particular track of the multiple tracks of the new song is similar to a copyrighted track of the copyrighted song; and automatically modifying one or more note sequences in the particular track, the modifying including: adding one or more notes in the particular track; deleting one or more notes in the particular track; modifying a pitch of one or more notes in the particular track; modifying a duration of one or more notes in the particular track; or any combination thereof, to reduce time and provide more exhaustive list of musical options to user.
As per claim 13, the combination of Brooker and Compton teaches the server of claim 7, wherein modifying the new song to reduce the similarity between the new song and the copyrighted song comprises: determining that a particular track of the multiple tracks of the new song is similar to a copyrighted track of the copyrighted song ([0040], determining similar matches between audio files using hash fingerprints).
The combination of Brooker and Compton does not explicitly teach instructing a generative artificial intelligence to generate a new track to replace the particular track. Silverstein teaches instructing a generative artificial intelligence to generate a new track to replace the particular track ([0050] and [0055], generating musical tracks with note sequences on a DAW or multi-track sequencer).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brooker and Compton with the teachings of Silverstein, a generative artificial intelligence to generate a new track to replace the particular track, to reduce time and provide more exhaustive list of musical options to user.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claims 3 and 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 12. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 13. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker and Compton in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB No. 2022/0222294) [hereinafter “Wang”].
As per claim 5, the combination of Brooker and Compton teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Brooker and Compton does not explicitly teach the similarity index comprises a Jaccard index. Wang teaches the similarity index comprises a Jaccard index ([0180], using hashes and Jaccard similarity to compare audio samples).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brooker and Compton with the teachings of Wang, the similarity index comprises a Jaccard index, to allow the protection and identification of individual parts of a song that may be used in remixes and other audio songs.
As per claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker and Compton in view of Wick et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0387743) [hereinafter “Wick”].
As per claim 6, the combination of Brooker and Compton teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Brooker and Compton does not explicitly teach determining an intersection of the first subset of the first set of hashes and the second subset of the second set of hashes; determining a union of the first subset of the first set of hashes and the second subset of the second set of hashes; and determining a ratio of the intersection to the union. Wick teaches determining an intersection of the first subset of the first set of hashes and the second subset of the second set of hashes ([0014], determining the intersection of two sets of hashes – for use in determining Jaccard similarity); determining a union of the first subset of the first set of hashes and the second subset of the second set of hashes ([0014], determining the union of two sets of hashes – for use in determining Jaccard similarity); and determining a ratio of the intersection to the union ([0014], determining the ratio of the intersection to the union).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brooker and Compton with the teachings of Wick, determining an intersection of the first subset of the first set of hashes and the second subset of the second set of hashes; determining a union of the first subset of the first set of hashes and the second subset of the second set of hashes; and determining a ratio of the intersection to the union, to allow the protection and identification of individual parts of a song that may be used in remixes and other audio songs.
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered. In light of the new amendments, Examiner has introduced and cited to a new prior art reference, Compton.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wick et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0387743), Lengeling et al. (US PGPUB No. 2010/0162878), Yoelin (US PGPUB No. 2019/0035372), Chang et al. ("Music Copyright Infringement Detection via Heterogeneous Attention Network," 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData), Washington, DC, USA, 2024, pp. 8637-8639, doi: 10.1109/BigData62323.2024.10825002), Thomas et al. ("Detection of similarity in music files using signal level analysis," 2016 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), Singapore, 2016, pp. 1650-1654, doi: 10.1109/TENCON.2016.7848297) and Chen ("Cover Song Recognition Using a Modified Similarity Network Fusion Algorithm," 2025 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Robotics (ICICR), Dalian, China, 2025, pp. 373-378, doi: 10.1109/ICICR65456.2025.00072) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including generating new music content using AI and machine learning.
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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 March 26, 2026