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 1-12 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the REM filed 06/26/2026.
4. Claim 1 is independent claims.
5. The office action is made Final.
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 1-12 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, with a processor, 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, with the processor, a first song portion and a second song portion from the candidate list for the first time block based on each of the first song portion and the second song portion having a consistent energy, tempo, and/or pitch; and compiling, with the processor, the first song portion and the second song portion to form at least a portion of the first time block”,
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.
" compiling /mixing audio tracks according to a template" involves applying an abstract idea (the template's structure/settings/configuration) 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.
" compiling /mixing 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. 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).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (processor), the claim recites an abstract idea.
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 from a user, at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template” is 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 from a user, at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template” was 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 from a user, at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template” is 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.
The dependent claims 2-12 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 3-6, 8, 9 AND 11
Step 2A Prong 1: Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Those are a mental process. One can mentally performs claims 3-6, 8, 9 AND 11 in mind.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 2, 7, 10 AND 12
Step 2A Prong 1:
The Claims inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere extra solution activities of displaying data.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are mere data receiving/gathering and outputting that is recited at a high level of generality, and are well-understood. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
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.
15. 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;
10. Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Guralnick (US 9880805 B1) hereinafter as Guralnick.
11. Regarding claim 1, Guralnick, teaches A computerized process comprising:
receiving, from a user, at least one request for each of a plurality of time blocks of a template (Fig 3A, “workout preset for user 1 (Template) with a section of time blocks 311”, Fig 2, “user input 114 (e.g. Time 114a, selection 114b, workout style 114c)”, para. 94, “a given workout configuration 103 (Template)”, para. 123, “The total selected workout time 114a of the workout may be shown in a time display 309. The user may then begin selecting song titles 112 to fill in the workout time 114a from the song database 108.”);
querying, with a processor, 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 (para.24, “The workout music playback device may also have an audio file database for storing the edited different length song recordings prepared by the mixer.”, para.63, “Each of the possible edited song recording of the original musical recording is of a different duration and is composed of a different arrangement of song segments of the original musical recording when compared to the other possible edited song recordings of the original musical recording.”, Fig 2, para.94, “While processing the user input 114, the media output manager 106A retrieves from memory 125 the song edit data 101 corresponding to the user input 114 and transmits information on the arrangements of song segments to be assembled to the instruction relay module 106B which instructs the media output generator 120 to create the stream of workout music 111.”, para.95, “comparing the identifier stored in the master song edit metadata with the song title 112 stored in the workout configuration 103 (e.g. such as by parsing the characters of the song title 112 and comparing the song title 112 with the identifier information of the master song edit metadata).”, para.169, “the media output manager 106A compares the time duration values of the different arrangements of song segments of the song title 112 with a time pre-selected by the user (time blocks selected by the user).”);
choosing, with the processor, a first song portion and a second song portion from the candidate list for the first time block based on each of the first song portion and the second song portion having a consistent energy, tempo, and/or pitch (para.56, “The song recording metadata may also include data on the nature of the original musical recording, such as the range and fluctuation of volume of the original musical recording as a function of frequency and time, and corresponding volume correction parameters and equalizer parameters. The song recording metadata may also provide information on the length of the original musical recording, the title of the original musical recording and the name of the artist associated with the original musical recording. It will be appreciated that the song recording metadata may provide other information on the original musical recording without departing from the present teachings.”, para.62, “beats per minute (BPM), tempo”, para.71, “The master song edit metadata may also include, for example, information on the tempo of the edited song recordings of the original musical recording”); and
compiling, with the processor, the first song portion and the second song portion to form at least a portion of the first-time block (para.24, “the workout music playback device may have a mixer for assembling edited different length song recordings for each song title with specific ranges and exercise burn rate patterns in accordance with the song edit data.”, para.52, “a compiled list of song play instructions for an audio player that defines Title, Burn Rate, Start Time, Volume, Bass, Mid, Treble, End Time for each song segment played throughout the workout.”, para.147, para.181, “The mixer 142 may use the song recording data stored in memory 125 to generate different length edited song recordings corresponding to the original musical recordings 110, as a function of song edit data 101.”, para.168).
12. Regarding claim 2, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches generating an audio file with the plurality of time blocks (Abstract, Fig 2, para.104, “storing the audio file corresponding to the edited song recording in an audio file database, such as the audio file database 141 illustrated in FIG. 2.”).
13. Regarding claim 3, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and further teaches appending metadata of the first song portion and the second song portion to the audio file (para.24, “the workout music playback device may have a mixer for assembling edited different length song recordings for each song title with specific ranges and exercise burn rate patterns in accordance with the song edit data.”, para.52, “a compiled list of song play instructions for an audio player that defines Title, Burn Rate, Start Time, Volume, Bass, Mid, Treble, End Time for each song segment played throughout the workout.”, para.147, para.181, “The mixer 142 may use the song recording data stored in memory 125 to generate different length edited song recordings corresponding to the original musical recordings 110, as a function of song edit data 101.”, para.168).
14. Regarding claim 4, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches adjusting a pitch of the second song portion to match key with the first song portion (para.9, “output an audio signal of the workout music from the song recording data while adjusting the equalization parameters of the audio signal of the workout music as a function of the audio output instructions over the course of the workout duration.”, para.17, “The media output generator may be further configured to adjust the equalization of song segments played in the data stream of workout music”, para.66, “the equalization parameters of the portion of the edited song recording played in the cooldown portion may be adjusted, such as by lowering the volume of certain frequency ranges.”, para.72, “equalization between the original musical recordings involves adjusting the balance between the different frequency ranges within an electronic signal of the song segment, such as adjusting the frequency range of the bass of the original musical recording and the treble of the original musical recording by using linear filters. Equalization involves adjusting the amplitude of audio signals at different frequencies. Equalization may be used to adjust (i.e. increase or decrease) the prominence of different frequency ranges within an original musical recording, such as by adjusting the bass or the vocal component within the original musical recording.”).
15. Regarding claim 5, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the first song portion and the second song portion are generating by parsing the catalog of songs and/or song portions to identify any substantial change in volume and/or beat (table at para.82).
16. Regarding claim 6, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein compiling the first song portion and the second song portion includes blending a temporal length of the first song portion and the second song portion (para.24, “the workout music playback device may have a mixer for assembling edited different length song recordings for each song title with specific ranges and exercise burn rate patterns in accordance with the song edit data.”, para.52, “a compiled list of song play instructions for an audio player that defines Title, Burn Rate, Start Time, Volume, Bass, Mid, Treble, End Time for each song segment played throughout the workout.”, para.147, para.181, “The mixer 142 may use the song recording data stored in memory 125 to generate different length edited song recordings corresponding to the original musical recordings 110, as a function of song edit data 101.”, para.168).
17. Regarding claim 7, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches sending to a display a graphical user interface with a playlist including the first song portion and the second song portion (Fig 3B, Fig 5, step 406 and Fig 14).
18. Regarding claim 9, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7 above and further teaches removing the first song portion and/or the second song portion from the playlist based on user input (Fig 3B, Det Song 307, para.63, “The difference in duration between each of the edited song recordings of an original musical recording may be achieved by arranging the song segments differently for an original musical recording, where there is either repetition or removal of certain song segments of the original musical recording, this information on assembly stored in the song edit data. In some cases, it may be desirable to repeat or remove segments that correspond to what is a lyric verse or refrain of an original musical recording.”, para.123, “the user may select a given slot row 305, and then the user may select the delete song button 307, removing the selected slot row 305.”, para.150, “The notification display 315 may also notify the user to remove slot rows 305 corresponding to song titles 112 for a given workout time 309.”).
19. Regarding claim 10, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7 above and further teaches audibly previewing the first song portion and the second song portion to the user (para.142, Fig 3B, 4-13).
20. Regarding claim 12, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches sending to a display an indicator of a tempo or energy score over a temporal scale of the first song portion and the second song portion (para.142, Fig 3B, 4-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
22. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Guralnick (US 9880805 B1) hereinafter as Guralnick in view of Friesen et al (US 20160283192 A1) hereinafter as Friesen.
23. Regarding claim 8, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7 above, Guralnick did not specifically teach claim 8 limitations.
However, Friesen teaches resetting the first song portion and the second song portion of the playlist based on user input ([0040], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Friesen’s system into Guralnick’s and by incorporating Friesen into Guralnick because both systems are related to media playback would provide a playlist configuration.
24. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Guralnick (US 9880805 B1) hereinafter as Guralnick in view of Lyon et al (US 20170256271 A1) hereinafter as Lyon.
25. Regarding claim 11, Guralnick teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Guralnick did not specifically teach claim 11 limitations.
However, Lyon teaches checking a usage history of the first song portion and the second song portion; and removing the first song portion or the second song portion for violating licensing terms or restrictions ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Lyon’s system into Guralnick’s and by incorporating Lyon into Guralnick because both systems are related to audio processing would selectively remove one or more sound recordings from a mixed audio recording (Lyon, [0003]).
Respond to Amendments and Arguments
26. Double Patenting
Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the double patenting rejection based on the present claims.
27. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Abstract ideas)
Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 have been fully considered but it’s not persuasive. The 35 USC 101 made against claims 1-12 is maintained.
28. Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 to recite new features and argued that Gilbert fails to teach one or more features of amended claim 1. For a number of reasons, including but not limited to, the following.
A - For example, Gilber does not disclose "choosing a first song portion and a second song portion from the candidate list for the first time block based on each of the first song portion and the second song portion having a consistent energv, tempo and/or pitch.".
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
A - With respect to applicant’s arguments A, Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment presented above, 35 USC § 102. Thus, Guralnick for the reasons stated above teaches and suggest the elements of the amended claim 1.
CONCLUSION
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Basu et al (US 7081582 B2)
Pipitone et al (US 9014831 B2)
Lavine et al (US 8103314 B1)
Stevens et al (US 20060136556 A1)
Lee et al (US 8629342 B2)
Zalon et al (US 20170115956 A1)
Bohrarper et al (US 20140355789 A1)
Kelly (AU 2014253227 A1)
Morse et al (US 20070025194 A1)
Lavine et al (US 8855334 B1)
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights