Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1 is presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 03/03/2025.
4. The office action is made non-Final.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No 12242532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In the table below, the left side is parts of claim 1 in the current application while the right side is the claims and text that conflict with the parts of claim 1.
19/068,763 (present application)
17/219417 (U.S Patent No 12242532)
Claim 1. A computerized process comprising:
receiving at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template;
querying a catalog of songs and/or song portions in a database to compile a candidate list of songs and/or song portions that substantially meet the at least one request of a first time block of the plurality of time blocks;
choosing a first song portion and a second song portion from the candidate list for the first time block;
compiling the first song portion and the second song portion to form at least a portion of the first time block, including blending a temporal length of the first song portion and the second song portion; and
generating an audio file with the plurality of time blocks.
Claim 1. A computerized process comprising:
receiving, from a user, a first request for a first time block and a second request for a second time block of a template, wherein the first request includes a first energy score, the second request includes a second energy score, and the first energy score and the second energy score are based on a weighted summation based on two or more of a tempo, an audio power, a time signature, a loudness, a pitch, an intensity level, beats per a measure, a frequency, a root mean square (RMS) of an audio signal, and a genre;
querying a catalog of songs and/or song portions in a database to compile a first candidate list of songs and/or song portions that substantially meet the first request of the first time block;
choosing a first song portion and a second song portion from the songs and/or song portions of the first candidate list for the first time block;
compiling the first song portion and the second song portion to form at least a portion of the first time block; querying the catalog of songs and/or song portions in the database to compile a second candidate list of songs and/or song portions that substantially meet the second request of the second time block;
choosing a third song portion and a fourth song portion from the songs and/or song portions of the second candidate list for the second time block;
compiling the third song portion and the fourth song portion to form at least a portion of the second time block; and
generating an audio file with the first time block and the second time block.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 1 recites the steps or acts…, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1, recites in part the steps: “querying a catalog of songs and/or song portions in a database to compile a candidate list of songs and/or song portions that substantially meet the at least one request of a first time block of the plurality of time blocks; choosing a first song portion and a second song portion from the candidate list for the first time block; compiling the first song portion and the second song portion to form at least a portion of the first time block, including blending a temporal length of the first song portion and the second song portion”,
Simply "querying a catalog of songs" in a generic way (e.g., using a basic database search) is likely an abstract idea, much like the generic process of organizing and searching information.
“Choosing a song” is similar to thinking about a song, considering personal preferences, vocal range, or mood, and making a selection is inherently a mental process.
"Bending/mixing audio tracks according to a template" involves applying an abstract idea (the template's structure/settings) to a practical process, a generic idea like "making music", which is as abstract under U.S. patent law (§ 101), Using a template for organizing sound is a conceptual framework, similar to organizing data or managing a process, which courts classify as abstract ideas. Basic audio mixing steps, even with templates, can be seen as conventional or mental processes, which aren't patentable.
"Blending Two Songs" is an Abstract Idea under Mental Process or Method of Organizing Human Activity. It is a result or a function that can be performed in the human mind or with basic human activity. "Blending temporal lengths" (e.g., cross-fading or time-stretching song segments) is categorized as an abstract idea because it often involves the act of choosing where to blend or how long to make a segment is often viewed as something that could be performed as a mental exercise or with pen and paper. where a user, such as a mobile DJ (disc-jockey), uses blended-reproduction to mix a series of music recordings (stored, for example, as digital media files on his computer).
Therefore, those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind as a form of collecting, organizing, or manipulating data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “receiving at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template” and “generating an audio file with the plurality of time blocks” are considered as an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of claim 1 “receiving at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template” and “generating an audio file with the plurality of time blocks” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the step of “receiving at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template” and “generating an audio file with the plurality of time blocks” are mere data receiving/gathering and outputting that is recited at a high level of generality, and is well-understood. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Examiner Note
8. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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;
11. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Gilbert (US 20130205223 A1) hereinafter as Gilbert.
12. Regarding claim 1, Gilbert teaches A computerized process comprising:
receiving at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template ([0010], “User characteristics can be received by a user as a direct request for music, [0012], “selecting one or more digital music tracks for delivery to the user includes receiving, prior to receiving the listing of one or more digital music tracks selected by the DJ, one or more weighted search parameters (a template) based on any of the information in the annotated record of the digital music tracks and the one or more user characteristics received from the user. provide the DJ with a selection of digital music tracks based on matching between the one or more weighted search parameters and the information in the annotated record of the digital music tracks.”, [0013], “the algorithm can be configured to assign a weighting factor to each of the user characteristics utilized in selecting the one or more digital music tracks for delivery to the user.”, [0017], “the characteristics of the one or more digital music tracks determined by the waveform analysis can include any of song tempo…song genre”, [0098], “Advanced searching 1104 can provide one or more drop down boxes or other selection mechanisms to allow users to select particular characteristics of their desired digital music tracks (e.g., genre, tempo…”, see more specific Fig 15, [0114-0116], “weighting can be implemented by using numerical range weights as multipliers for the score of a relevancy match for each criterion being used to select digital music tracks… the total relevancy score for a given digital music track can be computed, for example, as the sum of its relevancy scores for each criterion used in a search.”);
querying a catalog of songs and/or song portions in a database to compile a candidate list of songs and/or song portions that substantially meet the at least one request of a first time block of the plurality of time blocks ([0012], “selecting one or more digital music tracks for delivery to the user includes receiving, prior to receiving the listing of one or more digital music tracks selected by the DJ, one or more weighted search parameters based on any of the information in the annotated record of the digital music tracks and the one or more user characteristics received from the user. These weighted search parameters can be used to provide the DJ with a selection of digital music tracks based on matching between the one or more weighted search parameters and the information in the annotated record of the digital music tracks.”, [0022], “The system further includes a first user interface configured to receive, from a user, one or more user characteristics, as well as a second user interface configured to provide one or more search mechanisms to allow a disc jockey (DJ) to search and select one or more digital music tracks based on any of the information in the annotated record of the one or more digital music tracks and the one or more user characteristics received from the user.”);
choosing a first song portion and a second song portion from the candidate list for the first time block ([0012], [0022], [0095-0096], “selection of digital music tracks”, [0098], [0115], “the playlist flow interface 1500 indicates that, from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM, music of the genre "Hip Hop," having a "sad" mood, a 90 beats per minute (bpm) tempo, male vocals, and guitar should be played.”);
compiling the first song portion and the second song portion to form at least a portion of the first time block, including blending a temporal length of the first song portion and the second song portion ([0165], “the delivery component 108 can be configured to automatically blend the beginning of a second song with the end of a first song. This can be accomplished, for example, by creating time markers in the second song on a downbeat (e.g., beat one) of a cycle at, for example, 4 measure intervals. Markers can be created from the beginning of the second song through a specified time in the song, which can be measured by actual time or number of bars.”, [0168], “Any blending or mixing features can be enabled or disabled by a user through the player interface. In addition, users can set hard start and stop times for each song based on a specific time or measure marker of the song”, [0169], “the player interface can allow users to configure transitions that utilize an intelligently timed delay between a first song and a second song based on the tempo or any other characteristic of the songs.”); and
generating an audio file with the plurality of time blocks (Fig 16, [0122], “return 1608 a list of selected tracks… display of a list of selected tracks, populating a playlist, or passing the selected tracks to the delivery component 108 for delivery to a user via streaming play, etc.”).
CONCLUSION
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Zalon et al (US 20170115956 A1)
Basu (US 20060000344 A1)
Hayes (US 20090177301 A1)
Bohrarper et al (US 20140355789 A1)
Brooker et al (US 20170236504 A1)
Lyons et al (US 20180192108 A1)
Morsy et al (US 20210279030 A1)
Walther (WO 2016189307 A1)
Vergo (US 20070074617 A1)
Miya et al (US 20090019995 A1)
Pipitone et al (US 20090259326 A1)
Michele (JP 2023153801 A)
Morsy et al (AU 2020432954 A1)
Mcneeney (GB 2506404 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164