DETAILED 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym BPM should be spelled out the first time it is used in a claim set. 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.
Claims 10-11 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.
The term “close to the BPM” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to the BPM” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinsch et al. (US Pub 2012/0130516).
Regarding claim 1, Reinsch discloses an acoustic control device configured to mix a first music piece and a second music piece (para 0012), wherein
in accordance with an operation of an operator configured to adjust a volume of the first music piece and a volume of the second music piece (para 0019-0020),
a volume of the first music piece in a low-frequency band and a volume of the second music piece in a low-frequency band are switched by lowering a volume level of the first music piece in the low-frequency band and raising a volume level of the second music piece in the low-frequency band (para 0036 – low band around 200hz that runs “from off to full on” as the fader moves).
Regarding claim 4, Reinsch discloses wherein when the operator reaches a middle position of an operable range of the operator, the volume level of the first music piece in the low-frequency band and the volume level of the second music piece in the low-frequency band are equalized (para 0036 – “the ‘switchy’ curve, transitioning rapidly from off to full on when the cross-fader is in the middle position.”; para 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Reinsch discloses wherein when the operator reaches an end of the operable range of the operator, an entire volume of the first music piece is set at a minimum volume (para 0019 – “when the slider is at the mid-point, each source is attenuated by an equal amount; and when the slider is at the far right position, source A is at zero volume, and source B is at full volume.”; para 0021).
Regarding claim 6, Reinsch discloses wherein the volume level of the first music piece in the low-frequency band is lowered when the operator is operated in a first direction, and
the volume level of the first music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band is lowered when the operator is further operated in the first direction from a position at which the volume level of the first music piece in the low-frequency band is at a minimum level (see example 1 – para 0023-0024 and para 0040).
Regarding claim 7, Reinsch discloses wherein the operator is a cross fader having a slidable fader operator (para 0019 - slider 110).
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinsch et al. (US Pub 2012/0130516) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US Pub 2012/0109348).
Regarding claim 2, Reinsch discloses an acoustic control device configured to mix a first music piece and a second music piece (para 0012).
Reinsch does not disclose wherein while the volume level of the first music piece in the low-frequency band is lowered and the volume level of the second music piece in the low-frequency band is raised, a volume level of the first music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band and a volume level of the second music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band are kept.
Matsunaga discloses wherein while the volume level of the first music piece in the low-frequency band is lowered and the volume level of the second music piece in the low-frequency band is raised (para 0007, 0078, 0094; see fig. 2, 5B), a volume level of the first music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band and a volume level of the second music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band are kept (para 0082, 0093-0094; see fig. 5A, 5B – moving one band’s member changes only that band and all others position stays the same ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinsch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order for the “equalizer device and a cross fader unit are operated concurrently with operations of the plurality of the manipulation members by band, which leads to fine and complex audio controls and various musical expressions by a single operation” (Matsunaga, para 0008).
Regarding claim 3, Reinsch discloses an acoustic control device configured to mix a first music piece and a second music piece (para 0012).
Reinsch does not disclose wherein the volume of the first music piece in the low-frequency band and the volume of the second music piece in the low-frequency band are switched while a volume level of the first music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band and a volume level of the second music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band are at a preset maximum level.
Matsunaga discloses wherein the volume of the first music piece in the low-frequency band and the volume of the second music piece in the low-frequency band are switched while a volume level of the first music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band and a volume level of the second music piece in each of a high-frequency band and a medium-frequency band are at a preset maximum level (para 0085, 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinsch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order for the “equalizer device and a cross fader unit are operated concurrently with operations of the plurality of the manipulation members by band, which leads to fine and complex audio controls and various musical expressions by a single operation” (Matsunaga, para 0008).
Regarding claim 13, Reinsch discloses an acoustic control device configured to mix a first music piece and a second music piece (para 0012).
Reinsch does not disclose wherein a magnitude relationship only between the volume of the first music piece in the low-frequency band and the volume of the second music piece in the low-frequency band is switched.
Matsunaga discloses wherein a magnitude relationship only between the volume of the first music piece in the low-frequency band and the volume of the second music piece in the low-frequency band is switched (para 0093-0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinsch with the teachings of Matsunaga in order for the “equalizer device and a cross fader unit are operated concurrently with operations of the plurality of the manipulation members by band, which leads to fine and complex audio controls and various musical expressions by a single operation” (Matsunaga, para 0008).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinsch et al. (US Pub 2012/0130516) in view of Bohrarper et al. (US Pub 2014/0355789).
Regarding claim 10, Reinsch discloses an acoustic control device configured to mix a first music piece and a second music piece (para 0012).
Reinsch does not disclose wherein when BPM of the first music piece are different from BPM of the second music piece,
playback BPM of the second music piece are set at the BPM of the first music piece when the volume of the first music piece is the preset maximum value and the volume of the second music piece is a minimum value, and
the playback BPM of the second music piece are brought close to the BPM of the second music piece in accordance with an operation of the operator in a direction for lowering the volume of the first music piece and for raising the volume of the second music piece.
Bohrarper discloses wherein when BPM of the first music piece are different from BPM of the second music piece (para 0121-0123),
playback BPM of the second music piece are set at the BPM of the first music piece when the volume of the first music piece is the preset maximum value and the volume of the second music piece is a minimum value (para 0123), and
the playback BPM of the second music piece are brought close to the BPM of the second music piece in accordance with an operation of the operator in a direction for lowering the volume of the first music piece and for raising the volume of the second music piece (para 0122-0123 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinsch with the teachings of Bohrarper in order to apply tempo adjustment during the crossfade between the two tracks (Bohrarper, para 0121).
Regarding claim 11, Bohrarper discloses wherein the playback BPM of the second music piece and the BPM of the second music piece are equalized when the volume of the first music piece is at a minimum value and the volume of the second music piece is at the preset maximum value within the operable range of the operator (para 0123 – “After the transition period (e.g., once track 404 has ceased to be played back), the tempo of track 406 is returned to its normal rate.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights