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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1, 4-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo (US 20100027388 A1, hereinafter “Kudo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo teaches an audio data processing device comprising: a player configured to play audio data; (see [0069]-[0070], Fig. 1, 2: optical disc reproducing apparatus 1 which is a type of audio data processing)
a playing direction switcher configured to switch a playing direction of the audio data between a forward direction and a reverse direction in response to an operation signal; (see [0005], [0108]: the rotation direction, which is the playing direction, is configured where if a clockwise direction is decided as the forward direction and a counter-clockwise direction as the reverse direction, the jog dial 41 identifies the directional switch in response to the operating signal)
and a play effect selector configured to apply a second play effect different from the first play effect to the audio data being played in the reverse direction. (see [0094]-[0096]: the jog dial 41 is operated to rotate to a counter-clockwise direction, the same sound effect as reproducing the analog record by rotating to the reverse direction is generated, thus a play effect different from the original effect is applied to the audio played in a reverse direction)
Kudo is silent to applying a first play effect to the audio data being played in the forward direction.
It is inherent that a first play effect is applied to the audio played in the forward direction because if a second play effect that is different from the audio playing in the forward direction is applied to the audio of the reverse direction, a different play effect could have well been applied to the forward direction. However, it would have been obvious to try to have chosen such arrangement because the play effect has already been applied to a reverse direction and it is a mere design choice to apply the play effect to the forward direction which yields no unexpected result or enhancement to the device.
Regarding claim 4, Kudo teaches the first play effect comprises a first intermittent mute effect for intermittently muting a sound at a first cycle up to a first number of times (see [0117]-[0123]: signal processor 14 is controlled so the muting process is performed at intervals of several times per second (step 103) every time)
Kudo is silent to the second play effect comprises a second intermittent mute effect for intermittently muting a sound at a second cycle up to a second number of times, and the first cycle is different from the second cycle or the first number of times is different from the second number of times.
However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to include a second intermittent mute effect at a second cycle up to a second number of times that is different from the first number of times. A second cycle provides further precision in the intervals of the mute effect and would have been determined based on designer’s preference which does not produce any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Kudo teaches the operation signal is generated by a rotary operator, and the playing direction switcher is configured to play the audio data in the forward direction when the rotary operator is not operated or when the rotary operator is rotated in a first direction and configured to play the audio data in the reverse direction when the rotary operator is rotated in a second direction opposite the first direction. (see [0094]-[0095]: in response to the rotating operation performed on the jog dial 41 in a clockwise direction, music is reproduced as usual and when it is stopped, not operated, the forward reproduction is performed. On the other hand, reverse reproduction is reproduced when rotated in reverse.)
Regarding claim 6, Kudo teaches a playing speed controller configured to play the audio data at a normal speed when the rotary operator is not operated and configured to change a playing speed of the audio data depending on a rotation speed of the rotary operator when the rotary operator is rotated in the first direction or the second direction. (see [0089]-[0092]: rotating operation of jog dial 41 reproducing speed changes according to the change of the access timing in a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction)
Regarding claim 7, Kudo is silent to the play effect selector does not to apply the first play effect when the rotary operator is not operated even when the audio data is played in the forward direction.
However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to incorporate a play effect selector that does not to apply the first play effect when the rotary operator is not operated even when the audio data is played in the forward direction. It would have been determined based on designer’s preference which does not produce any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Kudo teaches a non-transitory tangible storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform: a function for playing audio data;
a function for switching a playing direction of the audio data between a forward direction and a reverse direction in response to an operation signal; (see [0005], [0108]: the rotation direction, which is the playing direction, is configured where if a clockwise direction is decided as the forward direction and a counter-clockwise direction as the reverse direction, the jog dial 41 identifies the directional switch in response to the operating signal)
and a function for applying play effect selector configured to apply a second play effect different from the first play effect to the audio data being played in the reverse direction. (see [0094]-[0096]: the jog dial 41 is operated to rotate to a counter-clockwise direction, the same sound effect as reproducing the analog record by rotating to the reverse direction is generated, thus a play effect different from the original effect is applied to the audio played in a reverse direction)
Kudo is silent to a function for applying a first play effect to the audio data being played in the forward direction.
It is inherent that a first play effect is applied to the audio played in the forward direction because if a second play effect that is different from the audio playing in the forward direction is applied to the audio of the reverse direction, a different play effect could have well been applied to the forward direction. However, it would have been obvious to try to have chosen such arrangement because the play effect has already been applied to a reverse direction and it is a mere design choice to apply the play effect to the forward direction which yields no unexpected result or enhancement to the device.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo (US 20100027388 A1, hereinafter “Kudo”) in view of Inoue (US 20010017821 A1, hereinafter “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo is silent to one of the first play effect and the second play effect comprises a mute effect and the other of the first play effect and the second play effect does not comprise the mute effect.
However, Inoue teaches one of the first play effect and the second play effect comprises a mute effect and the other of the first play effect and the second play effect does not comprise the mute effect. (see [0064]: only one of the sounds reproduced in a forward or reverse direction, which inherently contains an applied play effect, is muted while the other is not (sound is output))
Kudo and Inoue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio data processing which assists techniques for DJ instruments. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Inoue to enable a mute effect applied to only one of the two play effects while the other does not contain a mute effect to Kudo in order to effectively manipulate the play effects precisely.
Regarding claim 3, Kudo teaches the mute effect comprises a full mute effect or an intermittent mute effect for intermittently muting a sound at a predetermined cycle. (see [0117]-[0123]: signal processor 14 is controlled so the muting process is performed at intervals of several times per second (step 103) every time)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo (US 20100027388 A1, hereinafter “Kudo”) in view of Slayden (US 8636199 B1, hereinafter “Slayden”).
Regarding claim 8, Kudo is silent to the first play effect or the second play effect comprises an echo effect or a filter effect.
Slayden teaches the first play effect or the second play effect comprises an echo effect or a filter effect. (see Column 3, line 53-67: play effect includes an echo effect or filter effect)
Kudo and Slayden are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio data processing which assists techniques for DJ instruments. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Slayden to include an echo or filter effect to Kudo in order for a variety of audio manipulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695