DETAILED ACTION
This examination is in response to the communication filed on 03/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, where claims 1and 10 are independent.
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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite several acronyms, e.g., RGB, CMYK, HEX, SVG, WMF, EPS, PDF, CDR, and AI, these acronyms should be expanded/defined either in the claims themselves or the specification to ensure clarity even though they appear to be well-known acronyms in the image processing art, some such as AI have alternative meanings in other arts. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “processing an audio file to identify key notes”, “processing each key note to identify representative frequency”, “processing the representative frequencies to compute a wavelength”, “processing the wavelengths to generate color values, in RBG, CMYK, and HEX”, “processing the frequencies to generate a cymatic shape, vectorized in multiple formats” and “processing each vectorized cymatic shape into its independent subcomponents.”
The limitations of “processing…”, “processing…”, “processing…”, “processing…”, “processing…” and “discriminating…” as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting a “processor” (claim 10), a “memory” (claim 10), and computer program logic (claim 10), nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person
processing an audio file containing original voice input, to identify the key notes, expressed as root notes, wherein the audio file comprises multiple key notes (e.g., by the person with perfect pitch listening to the audio identifying and identify the fundamental note(s) of the audio),
processing each key note to compute a representative frequency in hertz (e.g., by the person looking up the identify notes in table mapping notes to frequencies),
processing each representative frequency to computer a wavelength in nanometers, corresponding to each identified key note (e.g., by the person, using pencil and paper to covert the identified frequencies to corresponding visual spectrum),
processing each wavelength corresponding to each identified key note to generate representative color values in RBG, CMYK and HEX, for each identified key note (e.g., by the person using pencil and paper, to convert the corresponding wavelengths to RGB color values using, e.g., the Dan Bruton algorithm, and then utilizing well known algorithms for converting from RBG to CMYK or HEX values),
processing each frequency representing and identified key note, to generate a cymatic shape, vectorized in SVG, WMF, EPS, PDF, CDR, and AI formats (e.g., by the person utilizing known equations for generating Chladni patterns, and then vectorizing the Chladni patterns by determining which Bezier curve most accurate matches the Chladni patterns) and
processing each vectorized cymatic shape, generating independent, vectorized components that make up the corresponding cymatic shape, in SVG, WMF, EPD, PDF, CDR, and AI formats (e.g., by the person dividing or exploding the cymatic shapes into their sub-components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a “processor” (claim 10), a “memory” (claim 10), and computer program logic (claim 10) are all recited at a high-level of generality, and paragraph [0038] of the Specification describes the use of a general-purpose processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1 and 10 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “processor”, a “memory”, and computer program logic” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 11, 12 and 14-19, these claims are directed the format of the audio file, e.g., wav file, and the processing being performed using python script. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person listening to a wav file and them generating python script code to perform the respective algorithms. No additional elements are present.
With respect to dependent claims 8, 9 and 20, these claims are directed to additional step of identifying sentiments within the voice input and their corresponding key notes. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person listening to a wav file determining different emotions from the tone and corresponding pitch at the points when the tone changes. No additional elements are present.
With respect to the dependent claim 13, this claim is directed to the electronic device being a remote device configured to communicate with one or more other wireless devices. As discussed with respect to independent claim 10, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, e.g., a remote device, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Step 2B = No, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Baltazor teaches a method for generating foundational design elements, or Brand Standards, from voice input, and a system, comprising an electronic device having a processor and a memory, and computer program having logic, comprising:
processing an audio file containing original voice input, to identify the key notes, expressed as root notes (Fig. 8, Step 802 and col. 4, lines 44-53 teaches “At 802, tones of a sound, and corresponding amplitudes, are determined…Tones 902 may be detected with a Fast Fourier Transform” );
wherein the audio file comprises multiple key notes (Fig. 8, Step 804 and col. 4, lines 54-56 teaches “a predetermined number of the detected tones is selected for mapping to visible spectrum 204…and/or to cymatic information” );
processing each key note to compute a representative frequency in hertz (Fig. 8, Step 806 and col. 4, lines 59-62 teaches “At 806, for each selected tone, electromagnetic radiation is output at a frequency that is based on a pitch class of the selected tone…”);
processing each representative frequency to compute a wavelength in nanometers, corresponding to each identified key note (Fig. 8, step 804 and col. 4, lines 54-55 teaches “At 804, a predetermined number of the detected tones is selected for mapping to visible spectrum 204” and col. 3, lines 9-10 teaches “…the frequencies of each octave of Fig. 1 are mapped to respective frequencies of visible spectrum 204”);
processing each frequency representing an identified key note, to generate a cymatic shape (Fig. 8, Step 810 and col. 5, lines 30-37 teaches “…at 810, for each of the one or more of the selected tones, one or more cymatic devices are stimulated at a frequency that is based on the pitch class of the selected tone…that includes instructions to cause a processor to generate a cymatic image based on a frequency and amplitude of a selected tone” ).
Baltazar fails to explicitly disclose processing each wavelength corresponding to each identified key note to generate representative color values in RBG, CMYK and HEX, for each identified key note; vectorizing the cymatic shapes/images in SVG, WMF, EPS, PDF, CDR, and AI formats; and processing each vectorized cymatic shape, generating independent, vectorized components that make up the corresponding cymatic shape, in SVG, WMF, EPS, PDF, CDR, and AI formats. Although, RBG, CMYK, HEX, SVG, WMF, EPS, PDF, CDR, and AI are well known formats in image color processing and vector imaging, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest breaking down the cymatic images into independent components vectorized in each of a plurality of vector formats including, SVG, WMF, EPS, PDF, CDR, and AI in combination with generating color values in each of RBG, HEX, and CMYK for each wavelength corresponding to each identified key note as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 11-20 variously dependent from independent claims 1 or 10 and therefore contain the same allowable subject matter of independent claim 1 or
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baltazor, US 2020/0251080 and US10755683 B1, teaches system and methods for transforming sound to visual and tactile stimuli;
Qaisar et al., “Automatic Speech Recognition and its Visual Perception Via a Cymatics Based Display” teaches a Cymatics based systematic visual perception of recognized isolated speech commands;
Taenzer et al., “Analysis and Visualisation of Music”, teaches the use of cymatic images to visual music;
Serena Job , “What are Brand Standards and Why do they Matter?” teaches that it is known for Brand Standards to include color values in RGB, CMYK, and Hex;
Turczan, US 2024/0345426, teaches system and methods for generating cymatic images;
Bach et al., US 2024/0296816, teaches systems and methods for using laser-based cymatics to physicalize sound; and
Lee et al, US 2020/0215970 A1, teaches system and method of utilizing a bio-signal to determine the positivity of a user or a change in the amount of positivity of the user which utilizes cymatic images as feedback.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENNY L CAUDLE whose telephone number is (703)756-1432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am to 5:00 pm eastern.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/PENNY L CAUDLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2657