The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 03/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, which falls within a statutory category (machine).
Step 2A(1) – Recites a Judicial Exception
Claims 1-20 recite operations including:
Determining an estimated tuning pitch associated with an audio signal
Presenting the estimated pitch to a user
Receiving user input to modify a playback tuning pitch
Modifying playback tuning based on the user input
These limitations recite abstract ideas, including:
Mathematical concepts (estimating tuning pitch); and
Mental processes / human interaction (adjusting playback tuning based on user preference).
Such concepts fall within the judicial exceptions recognized under §101.
Step 2A(2) – Integration Into a Practical Application
The claims additionally recite generic computing components, including:
One or more processors
Computer-readable recording media
A user interface
Audio playback
These elements merely implement the abstract idea on generic computer hardware and perform conventional functions such as data processing, displaying information, receiving input, and playing audio. The claims do not improve computer functionality, audio signal processing technology, or any other technical field.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer-implemented audio playback systems. The claims do not recite any unconventional hardware, specialized algorithm, or technical improvement that amounts to an inventive concept.
Thus, the claims fail to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea and does not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuda et al. (US 2006/0027074; Hereinafter Masuda).
Re claims 1 and 14, Masuda teaches a system for facilitating tuning estimation and modification (fig. 5, GUI is displayed to help user tune an instrument), comprising:
one or more processors ([0096], CPU); and
one or more computer-readable recording media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system ([0096], computer-readable recording medium) to:
access an audio signal (fig. 6 and [0067], the tone signal of the performed note is inputted to the input portion 120);
determine an estimated tuning pitch associated with the audio signal (fig. 6 and [0067]-[0068], the tuner apparatus 10 calculates, by the calculating portion 150, a pitch difference between the target note specified at the Step SB3 and the pitch of the performed note (Step SB4). Also see fig. 16, GUI displays the performed note played by the user);
present the estimated tuning pitch on a user interface (fig. 16, GUI displays the performed note played by the user);
receive user input directed to modifying a playback tuning pitch of the audio signal to deviate from the estimated tuning pitch (figs. 18-19, user keeps playing notes and system reflects the changes accordingly on the GUI. It lets user know if the note is less than or over the root);
modify the playback tuning pitch of the audio signal based upon the user input (fig. 17, displaying the performed note from the user which is Eb4 in this case while it is E4 in fig. 16);
receive additional user input directed to causing playback of the audio signal in accordance with the modified playback tuning pitch (figs. 18-19, user played a note and the system detects it as F4 as shown on the GUI); and
play the audio signal in accordance with the modified playback tuning pitch (figs. 18-19, as user keeps adjusting the performed notes, the system will detect and display the result on the screen accordingly).
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 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 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.
Claims 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Coover et al. (US 2021/0073275; Hereinafter Coover).
Re claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Masuda teaches the audio signal is the performed note from the player (fig. 18-19, displaying sound played by user) but Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the audio signal comprises an audio recording of a song. However, it is taught by Coover (fig. 1 and [0040], producer of a recording studio wherein he can adjust the pitch of audio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Coover’s content into Masuda’s invention because it allows user have the ability to interact with a plurality type of media.
Re claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Masuda teaches wherein the estimated tuning pitch comprises an estimated concert pitch (figs. 18-19, displaying both the root and the performed note from user. Obviously, the root note is the standard sound for musical notation) but Msuda does not teach the pitch is applicable to the song. However, it is taught by Coover ([0040], media producer can adjust the pitch of audio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Coover’s content into Masuda’s invention because it allows user have the ability to interact with a plurality type of media.
Re claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. This claim has similar limitations as cited in claims 2 and 3. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Claims 4-5, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Johnson et al. (US 2023/0368759; Hereinafter Johnson).
Re claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the audio signal comprises an audio stem separated from an audio recording of a song. However, it is taught by Johnson (fig. 39 and [0029], song are comprised of separate stems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Johnson’s content into Masuda’s invention because it allows user to have the ability to assign track to each part to easily control and manage and achieve the task as desired.
Re claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the estimated tuning pitch comprises an estimated tuning pitch associated with the audio stem. However, it is taught by Johnson (fig. 39 and [0029], song are comprised of separate stems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Johnson’s content into Masuda’s invention because it allows user to have the ability to assign track to each part to easily control and manage and achieve the task as desired.
Re claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. This claim has similar limitations as cited in claims 4 and 5. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Re claim 20, Masuda teaches a system for facilitating tuning estimation and modification (fig. 5, GUI is displayed to help user tune an instrument), comprising:
one or more processors ([0096], CPU); and
one or more computer-readable recording media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system ([0096], computer-readable recording medium) to:
access an audio signal (fig. 6 and [0067], the tone signal of the performed note is inputted to the input portion 120);
for at least a particular audio signal of the plurality of audio stems, determine an estimated tuning pitch associated with the particular audio signal (fig. 6 and [0067]-[0068], the tuner apparatus 10 calculates, by the calculating portion 150, a pitch difference between the target note specified at the Step SB3 and the pitch of the performed note (Step SB4). Also see fig. 16, GUI displays the performed note played by the user);
present the estimated tuning pitch on a user interface (fig. 16, GUI displays the performed note played by the user);
receive user input directed to modifying a playback tuning pitch of the particular audio signal to deviate from the estimated tuning pitch (figs. 18-19, user keeps playing notes and system reflects the changes accordingly on the GUI. It lets user know if the note is less than or over the root);
modify the playback tuning pitch of the particular audio signal based upon the user input (fig. 17, displaying the performed note from the user which is Eb4 in this case while it is E4 in fig. 16);
receive additional user input directed to causing playback of the particular audio signal in accordance with the modified playback tuning pitch (figs. 18-19, user played a note and the system detects it as F4 as shown on the GUI); and
play the particular audio signal in accordance with the modified playback tuning pitch (figs. 18-19, as user keeps adjusting the performed notes, the system will detect and display the result on the screen accordingly).
Masuda does not teach separate the audio signal into a plurality of audio stems. However, it is taught by Johnson (fig. 39 and [0029], song are comprised of separate stems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Johnson’s content into Masuda’s invention because it allows user to have the ability to assign track to each part to easily control and manage and achieve the task as desired.
Claims 7-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Aviv et al. (US 2023/0022204; Hereinafter Aviv).
Re claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the estimated tuning pitch comprises a frequency estimation for a reference note. However, it is taught by Aviv ([0147], estimate frequency of a musical note in the audio signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Aviv’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would provide users an enhanced system with functionalities to help user achieve a task in a timely manner.
Re claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Masuda does not each wherein the estimated tuning pitch comprises a frequency deviation from a target playback tuning pitch. However, it is taught by Aviv ([0147], estimate frequency of a musical note in the audio signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Aviv’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would provide users an enhanced system with functionalities to help user achieve a task in a timely manner.
Re claims 9 and 18, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the target playback tuning pitch is determined based on an audio recording of a musical instrument. However, it is taught by Aviv ([0138], The notes covered by a single audio sample constitute a zone. The sampler is able to use a single sample for multiple notes by pitch-shifting the sample up or down by an appropriate number of semitones).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Aviv’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would provide users an enhanced system with functionalities to help user achieve a task in a timely manner.
Re claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the target playback tuning pitch comprises a user-selected pitch value. However, it is taught by Aviv ([0144], allow the user to manipulate the amplitude envelope (the ADSR settings, discussed below), apply modulation, use low frequency oscillators (LFOs) and waveforms, and adjust other parametric values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Aviv’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would provide users an enhanced system with functionalities to help user achieve a task in a timely manner.
Re claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the user input comprises user input confirming user intent to modify the playback tuning pitch of the audio signal to correspond to the target playback tuning pitch. However, it is taught by Aviv ([0144], allow the user to manipulate the amplitude envelope (the ADSR settings, discussed below), apply modulation, use low frequency oscillators (LFOs) and waveforms, and adjust other parametric values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Aviv’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would provide users an enhanced system with functionalities to help user achieve a task in a timely manner.
Re claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the user input comprises selection of a target playback tuning pitch value. However, it is taught by Aviv ([0144], allow the user to manipulate the amplitude envelope (the ADSR settings, discussed below), apply modulation, use low frequency oscillators (LFOs) and waveforms, and adjust other parametric values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Aviv’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would provide users an enhanced system with functionalities to help user achieve a task in a timely manner.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Ka et al. (US Patent 10,013,963; Hereinafter Ka).
Re claims 13 and 19, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Masuda does not teach wherein the target playback tuning pitch value is selected from a set of discrete pitch values presented to the user on the user interface. However, it is taught by Ka (fig. 4, user may complete tuning of the pitch of the user based on the pitch value displayed on the screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Ka’s content into Masuda’s invention because it would allow user to decide the certain tuning user wishes to achieve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 101 rejection is overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims set forth in this action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178