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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, and 17 are in independent form.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding 35 USC 101 (Abstract Idea)
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Although amended claim 1 recites an electronic system including an audio transducer and playback of the music set via the audio transducer, these additional elements simply use conventional computer/audio components to implement and output the result of the recited abstract process of evaluating contextual information and selecting or modifying music content based thereon. The limitation of “dynamically modifying the music set during the playing of the music set in response to a change in the contextual information” likewise recites the abstract evaluation and selection process during playback without specifying a particular technological mechanism for detecting the contextual change or technically modifying the audio. Simply converting electrical signals into audible sound through an audio transducer does not constitute an improvement to computer, audio transducer, or audio processing technology.
Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The rejection under 35 USC 103 is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim 1 -20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, although these claims recite a processor, the claimed “a media storing instructions executable by the computer processor” is broadly interpreted as encompassing transitory propagating signals or carrier-wave media per se, because the claim does not define the media as non-transitory. Additionally, the specification fails to limit the claimed media to any form of non-transitory computer readable media, and because the claims do not recite that the media is non-transitory, therefore under In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), media is considered non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) personalized music compilation system.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1, and 17 directed to a system which failed to fall into one of the four statutory subject matters (see above).
Independent All other claims depend on claims 1, and 17. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a non-statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, and 17:
With respect to step 2A, prong one (Judicial Exception), the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite:
“wherein the system determines the portions of the plural audio tracks at least in part based on contextual information” the limitation as drafted recites a mental process involving evaluation of contextual information and decision making regarding which music content portions should be selected.
“wherein the contextual information comprises: a listening history for the user” the limitation as drafted recites a mental process involving collecting and evaluating user preference/history information.
“a time of day in which the music set is being played” limitation as drafted recites a mental process involving consideration of temporal information in making content-selecting music content.
“a day of week on which the music set is being played” limitation as drafted recites a mental process involving consideration evaluating scheduling or timing for making content-selecting music content.
“a regularity of an occasion in which the music set is being played” limitation as drafted recites a mental process involving evaluating recurring user activities or events in making content-selecting music content.
“a type of device on which the music set is being played; and a location at which the music set is being played” limitation as drafted recites evaluating contextual device information in making content-selecting music content.
dynamically modifying the music set during the playing of the music set in response to a change in the contextual information” as drafted recites a mental process involving namely evaluating change information and changing the selection based on that evaluation.
These limitations correspond to concept that can be performed in the human mind (Mental Process) and mathematical algorithms therefore fall within the Mental Process category of abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)).
Nothing in the claim requires a new hardware structure, improved storage technique, or any specific technological improvement.
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims are generic computer components preforming their routine functions. The claims include:
“a computer processor” as drafted recites generic computing components, performing their ordinary functions of processing (computer as a tool to perform abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
“a media storing instructions executable by the computer processor” as drafted recites a media (for the sake of analysis: even if defined as non-statuary storage medium) used to implement instructions on a conventional processor, which simply amounts to instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technology (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“an electronic system that includes at least one audio transducer” as drafted recites a generic audio transducer (speakers, headphone/earphones, etc.) constituting insignificant extra solution activity and routine storage operation (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“non-transitory media storing data in one or more databases” as drafted recites a generic storage functions constituting insignificant extra solution activity and routine storage operation (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“initiating play of a music set” as drafted recites insignificant post solution activity involving output of selected music.
“wherein the music set comprises one or more portions of each of plural audio tracks” as drafted simply recites the content being selected and/or presented, and does not provide a specific technological mechanism for generating or processing audio portions.
“playing the music set using the electronic system via the audio transducer” as drafted recites a generic audio transducer (speakers, headphone/earphones, etc.) constituting insignificant extra solution activity and routine storage operation (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“wherein the system determines the portions of the plural audio tracks at least in part based on contextual information” as drafted recites the abstract idea itself, namely evaluating contextual information and selecting music content based on the evaluation, without reciting a specific technological mechanism for executing the determination.
“dynamically modifying the music set …” as drafted recites the abstract idea itself, namely evaluating change information and changing the selection based on that evaluation.
The additional elements mentioned above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more that:
Generic computer components performing generic computer functions;
Insignificant extra solution activity, including collecting, storing, and outputting information;
Applying the abstract idea using conventional computing technology.
The claims do not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or processor;
Improve audio processing technology;
Improve playlist generation technology;
Improved transducer technology;
Provide a specific technological mechanism for determining portions of audio tracks;
Recite a specific waveform-processing (harmony, tempo and beat) algorithm;
Provide a technical improvement to music streaming or playback systems.
There are no improvements to computer functionality or any specific technical solution to a computer centric problem. Instead, the computer components are used simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea of evaluating contextual information and selecting music content based on such information.
There is no recitation of, a new data structure that changes computer operation, improved network functioning, an unconventional indexing technique, a specific hardware solution.
Instead, the computer components are used as tools to perform the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and associating information about nodes and their relationships.
The recited components perform their generic/ordinary, expected functions, which is considered insufficient. These claims are merely functional software components performing generic task. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited components are merely generic computer/database elements performing their routine, well-understood, and conventional functions. See Alive, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The steps mentioned in the independent claims merely provide conventional techniques, architecture, or conventional computer (generic processor; generic database; etc…). The steps in the claims are a routine and conventional.
Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Such generic, high‐level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer‐based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent‐eligible, as noted at pg.74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359‐60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093‐94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257‐1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claimpatent‐eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".).
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well‐understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ... ; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC ... ; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ... ;
• Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life ... ;
• Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp ... ; Ultramercial ... ;
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ... ;
• Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank ... ; and
• A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
• Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. ...
. . . Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, 14, and 16 (Contextual Information/User Environment Analysis),
The claim recites:
Contextual information includes: time of day, day of week (claim 2),
Contextual information includes: purpose of an occasion (claim 3).
Contextual information includes: location types (claim 4).
Contextual information includes: condition of a location (claim 5).
Contextual information excludes: user selection (claim 6).
Contextual information includes: biometric information from an environment (claim 14).
Updating contextual information and modifying the music set (claim 16)
This is merely refining: evaluating user context, organizing/selecting music based on contextual information, and modifying playlist according to changing contextual information. These are considered: Mental Process (observation, evaluation, preference analysis, judgement).
The limitations simply specify additional categories of contextual information, without reciting: a specific technological mechanism for contextual analysis; technical improvement to playlist generation system; or a specific audio processing implementation.
There is no technical mechanism provide for: how contextual information is technologically analyzed; how state of mind or social dynamic determinations are computationally performed; or how playlist modifications improve computer functionality.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 7-9, 13, and 20 (Audio Similarity/Transition/Synchronization Analysis),
The claim recites:
Mixing portions of audio tracks by transitioning between portions similar in: harmony, tempo, beat (claim 7),
Selecting portions that are similar (claim 8).
Determining similarity by: analyzing sound profiles (claim 9).
Aligning rhythmic nodes (claims 13 and 20).
This is merely refining: comparing musical characteristics; selecting transitions according to similarity criteria, and synchronizing/aligning media based on evaluation. These are considered: Mental Process (comparison, evaluation, similarity determination, judgment).
The limitations simply recite generalized result-oriented concepts, without reciting: a specific wave-form processing technique, a specific digital signal processing algorithm, or a concrete technological implementation for performing the analysis; technical improvement to playlist generation system; or a specific audio processing implementation.
There is no technical mechanism provide for: how harmony/tempo similarity is computationally calculated; how sound profiles ate technically analyzed; or how rhythmic alignment improve computer functionality.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 10-12, and 18-19 (Audio Modification/Playback Manipulation),
The claim recites:
Automatically modifying portions of tracks (claim 10),
Adjusting: volume, frequency (claim 11).
Looping portions of the track (claim 12 and 19).
Modifying audio properties based on similarity analysis (claim 18).
This is merely refining: modifying media playback characteristics, repeating selected media portions, and adjusting audio presentation according to evaluated criteria. These are considered: Mental Process (editing, adjustment, selection, repetition).
The limitations simply recite generalized functional results, without reciting: a specific audio processing architecture, a novel DSP (digital signal processing) implementation; a specific frequency adjustment mechanism, or a technical improvement to audio processing systems.
There is no technical mechanism provide for: how frequency modifications are computationally performed; how looping operations are technologically implemented; or how the modification improved computer functionality.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreifeldtt; Richard Allen (US 20160196345 A1), in view of Richman; Jason et al. (US 20160189222 A1) [Richman] in view of O'Driscoll; Brendan et al. (US 20160292269 A1) [O'Driscoll].
Regarding claim 1, Kreifeldt discloses, a music compilation system (playlist generation system based on contextual information ¶ [0032], [0036], [0040]), comprising: a computer processor; an electronic system that includes at least one audio transducer (the media player device 800 includes, without limitation, a processor 805, memory 810, I/O devices 820, a network interface 825 and a touch-sensitive display device 830 ¶ [0065]-[0066]; the I/O devices 820 could include a set of directional buttons used to control aspects of a video game played using the media player device 800. In the context of the present disclosure, the I/O devices 820 can include at least one audio output device configured to project a steerable beam of sound ¶ [0067]) and a non-transitory media storing instructions executable by the computer processor, wherein the instructions, when executed (see Fig. 8), facilitate the music compilation system performing operations comprising:
in response to receiving a user selection, initiating play of a music set (based on a user request (e.g., a voice command of “Play some rock music”, a user selection within a graphical user interface provided by the playlist creation component 115, etc.) ¶ [0040] and [0062]),
wherein the system determines the portions of the plural audio tracks at least in part based on contextual information (track recognition based on contextual information ¶ [0038], [0040], [0062], [0064]); and
wherein the contextual information comprises: a listening history for the user (user's historical listening preferences ¶ [0052], [0057]);
and one or more of: a time of day in which the music set is being played; a day of week on which the music set is being played; a regularity of an occasion in which the music set is being played; a type of device on which the music set is being played; and a location at which the music set is being played (As another example, the playlist creation component 115 could monitor the user's 120 behavior over time and could determine circumstances in which the user historically prefers to listen to playlists created using each of the clusters. For example, the playlist creation component 115 could monitor the user's behavior to collect metadata such as the time of day, day of the week, geographic location, etc. …. f the playlist creation component 115 determines that the user frequently listens to rock and hip hop music with certain acoustical characteristics while driving in the afternoon ¶ [0036], [0040]; the playlist creation component 115 could classify the user based on metadata describing the user (e.g., the user's age, geographic location, etc.) ¶ [0032]).
However, Kreifeldt does not explicitly facilitate playing the music set using the electronic system via the audio transducer; storing data in one or more databases, the data associating a user with access credentials for one or more music libraries; wherein the music set comprises one or more portions of each of plural audio tracks.
Richman discloses, playing the music set using the electronic system via the audio transducer (a connected media environment or platform allows a user to select which of several media devices should be used to play a particular media content, such as streaming a selected song to a particular audio speaker, or streaming a selected movie to a particular television ¶ [0047], [0053], [0055]-[0057]; In accordance with various embodiments, the media device can be, for example, a personal computer system, handheld entertainment device, tablet device, smartphone, television, audio speaker, in-car entertainment system, or other type of electronic or media device that is adapted or able to prepare, control the presentation of, and/or play media content, for example, music, video, or television content ¶ [0061], [0232], [0280]; The user may listen to a requested stream using headphones, and place the media device out of sight, for example in a pocket, shoulder bag, or on an armband ¶ [0356]; Additionally, In accordance with an embodiment, media and advertisements may be served to wearable devices such as smart watches, smart glasses, helmets, self-powered headsets or earphones, and even wearable clothing ¶ [0398]);
storing data in one or more databases, the data associating a user with access credentials for one or more music libraries (In accordance with an embodiment, the media server comprises a user profile database containing information about the user, and can further interact with one or more external/third-party media content ¶ [0201], curated user data stored in a database ¶ [0277], media server can provide a subscription-based media streaming service, for which a user or client media device can have an associated account and credentials, which enables that user's media device to communicate with and to receive media content from the media server, in the form of media-access requests ¶ [0070]);
wherein the music set comprises one or more portions of each of plural audio tracks (music track samples inserted between music content items in a playlist … a sample from one or more tracks in the newly released compilation can be inserted into the media stream ¶ [00284]);
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the present invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Richman’s system would have allowed Kreifeldt to facilitate playing the music set using the electronic system via the audio transducer; storing data in one or more databases, the data associating a user with access credentials for one or more music libraries; wherein the music set comprises one or more portions of each of plural audio tracks. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Kreifeldt’s reference, because there is a need to improve providing additional media content which can be tailored to particular users or environments, and are particularly related to systems and methods for providing enhanced user-sponsor interaction in a media environment.
However, neither Kreifeldt nor Richman explicitly facilitate dynamically modifying the music set during the playing of the music set in response to a change in the contextual information.
O'Driscoll discloses, dynamically modifying the music set during the playing of the music set in response to a change in the contextual information (Once playback is initiated 1201, the system can monitor activity as a background process 1202 and will check to see if it can find any context aware signal that matches a known activity 1203. If it cannot identify such an activity the monitoring process will continue 1202 until such a match is found. If any context signals are found that match a known activity at 1203, the system will check if there are any other context signals that will confirm the known activity 1204. If no such confirming context signal is found, the monitoring process will commence again 1202. If a subsequent context signal(s) confirms that the user is engaging in a known activity then the system will analyse, based on the applicable user profile context engine, if there are better suited songs for that known activity at that point in time 1205. If there are no better suited songs for that known activity in that point in time, the system will revert to the monitoring system 1202. If there are better suited songs for that known activity at that point of time 1205 then the system will update the playlist accordingly 1207 with the more suitable songs. Once the current playing song comes to an end 1207 playback is updated 1208 and the user will be able to enjoy the new songs while continuing to do that matched known activity ¶ [0077]; FIG. 13 is a diagram of a user going for a jog while listening to music using the system of playlist updating. When playback is initiated 1301, the system would first check for multiple context signals that confirm that the user is going for a run. Once confirmed, the system would then analyse the songs in the playlist that the user is listening to or about to listen to and check that there are no more suitable songs based on the user profile context engine for that particular activity. In this case, there are no updates required for playback through songs 1 through 4. Once it becomes known that the user's pace has slowed down (confirmed by motion signals from the user's mobile device) the system recognises that there is a more suitable song for that known activity and a faster tempo song is queued as the next song in the playlist 1302. Once that new songs is introduced, the monitoring process identifies that the pace has resumed to the original speed 1303 (confirmed by motion signals from the user's mobile device) and no further playback updates are required until the jog comes to an end 1304 and a slower song is then queued in the playlist to match that known warm-down activity. When the user finally comes to a complete stop, playback is terminated automatically 1305 [0078]; it allows for playlists to be generated in real-time and updated according to the known activity of a user ¶ [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the present invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because O'Driscoll’s system would have allowed Kreifeldt and Richman to facilitate dynamically modifying the music set during the playing of the music set in response to a change in the contextual information. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Kreifeldt and Richman’s reference, because there is a need for and improved method and apparatus for recognizing and indexing context signals on a mobile device and marrying this information with content playback; additionally an improved system and method that uses real-time notifications to provide suggested playlists; and an improved system and method that can update playlists in real-time.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll discloses, wherein the contextual information comprises both the time of day in which the music set is being played and the day of week on which the music set is being played (Kreifeldt: As another example, the playlist creation component 115 could monitor the user's 120 behavior over time and could determine circumstances in which the user historically prefers to listen to playlists created using each of the clusters. For example, the playlist creation component 115 could monitor the user's behavior to collect metadata such as the time of day, day of the week, geographic location, etc. …. f the playlist creation component 115 determines that the user frequently listens to rock and hip hop music with certain acoustical characteristics while driving in the afternoon ¶ [0036], [0040]; the playlist creation component 115 could classify the user based on metadata describing the user (e.g., the user's age, geographic location, etc.) ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll discloses, wherein the contextual information further comprises a purpose of an occasion for which the music set is being played (Richman: user's playlist title such as “party” ¶ [0173], location of a media device and user thereof, with information describing one or more events, places, and environmental conditions ¶ [0226], In accordance with an embodiment, playlists can be manually created and curated, for example, by selected teams based on, e.g., genre, mood, target activity ¶ [0311]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll discloses, wherein the contextual information further comprises a type of the location in which the music set is being played, wherein the type of location includes one or more of: a road type; a location at, approaching, or leaving a home; a location at, approaching, or leaving work; a location at, approaching, or leaving a gym or exercise location; a location at, approaching, or leaving a restaurant; an in-vehicle location; a public location; and an art studio (Richman: location based playback ¶ [0053], in-car playback ¶ [0061], [0088], workout playlist ¶ [0307], [0312], a user's smartphone device can be associated with a media device location information 810 including one or more of an Internet address for use in a car, home entertainment system ¶ [0393], [0396], also see ¶ [0421], [0422], [0425]-[0429]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll discloses, wherein the contextual information further comprises a condition of the location in which the music set is being played, wherein the condition includes one or more of: a temperature; an air pressure; a light condition external to a vehicle; a light condition internal to the vehicle; a weather condition; a road condition; a traffic condition; a position of one or more seats of the vehicle; a volume level; a window configuration of the vehicle; an air conditioning setting; and a heating setting (Richman: information such as the current weather at the geographic location associated with a media device's Internet address receiving streamed media content ¶ [0116], [0219], [0347], a media device and user thereof, with information describing one or more events, places, and environmental conditions in proximity to the media device and the user, ¶ [0226]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll discloses, wherein the contextual information does not comprise a user selection (Kreifeldt: the playlist creation component 115 could automatically select the cluster model 300 based on the current context of the user ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll disclose, wherein the contextual information comprises one of: a state of mind of the user; and a social dynamic in the vehicle, wherein the state of mind is an assessment of a user state as determined by processing user data generated by one or more vehicle-associated biometric sensors, and the social dynamic in the vehicle is evaluated based on measurements generated by the biometric sensors related to interactions of the user with one or more other occupants in the vehicle (Kreifeldt: That is, the user 120 could have created a user profile that includes a previously capture image(s) of the user, and the playlist creation component 115 could match the images captured within the vehicle's cabin to the predefined images within the user profiles in order to identify the user 120. As another example, the playlist creation component 115 could collect biometric data (e.g., weight, average heart rate, etc.) from users within the vehicle (e.g., using I/O devices such as biometric sensors located within each seat of the vehicle) and could identify the users by matching the monitored biometric data to predefined biometric data corresponding to recognized users of the vehicle. As yet another example, the playlist creation component 115 could identify the user based on login and password information. More generally, any suitable technique for identifying the user 120 can be used, consistent with the functionality described herein ¶ [0028]).
Claim(s) 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreifeldt, in view of Richman, in view of O'Driscoll in view of Gilbert; Benjamin S. (US 20140180762 A1) [Gilbert].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
However, neither one of Kreifeldt, Richman, or O'Driscoll explicitly facilitate wherein the system compiles the music set by mixing portions of audio tracks by transitioning from a first portion of an audio track to a second portion of an audio track where the two portions of audio tracks are similar in one or more of harmony, tempo and beat.
Golbert discloses, wherein the system compiles the music set by mixing portions of audio tracks by transitioning from a first portion of an audio track to a second portion of an audio track where the two portions of audio tracks are similar in one or more of harmony, tempo and beat (The player interface can include several features to enhance the playback of music, especially the transitions between adjacent songs in a playlist. For instance, the delivery component 108 can be configured to automatically blend the beginning of a second song with the end of a first song ¶ [0165], better sync two songs having different musical characteristics like tempo, volume, pitch, key, etc. … align the rhythm of a first song and a second song such that a first beat of a first song aligns with a first beat of a second song in order to smooth the transition between the two songs ¶ [0166], also see blending or mixing ¶ [0168], configure transitions ¶ [0169]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the present invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Gilbert’s system would have allowed Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll to facilitate wherein the system compiles the music set by mixing portions of audio tracks by transitioning from a first portion of an audio track to a second portion of an audio track where the two portions of audio tracks are similar in one or more of harmony, tempo and beat. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Kreifeldt, Richman, and O'Driscoll’s reference, because there is a need for improved systems and methods for connecting an artist or song with a user who has, or is likely to have, an interest in the song. In particular, there is a need for more efficient systems and methods for collecting music, licensing it for distribution, and selectively distributing it to users most likely to find it desirable.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein the transition from the first portion of an audio track to the second portion of an audio track is where the two portions of audio tracks are most similar in one or more of harmony, tempo, and beat (Gilbert: similar songs ¶ [0128], desired music should be similar ¶ [0098], similar tally patterns ¶ [0147], better sync two songs ¶ [0168]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein the system determines where the two portions of audio tracks are similar by analyzing sound profiles of the two portions of audio tracks (Gilbert: an analysis component that can perform one or more analyses on the digital music tracks ¶ [0056], Sounds-like searching … desired music should be similar to (which can be determined by the system using, for example, data from the waveform analysis)… analysis component operates on the uploaded song for the purposes of determining at least data from the waveform analysis ¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein the system automatically modifies one or more of the two portions of audio tracks to increase its similarity to the other portion (Gilbert: If the songs have different tempos, the delivery component 108 (or player interface specifically) can be configured to gradually slow or accelerate the tempo of either the first or second song in order to bring the two in sync ¶ [0166]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein the system adjusts one of a volume and a frequency of one or more of the two portions of audio tracks to increase its similarity to the other portion (Gilbert: If the songs have different tempos, the delivery component 108 (or player interface specifically) can be configured to gradually slow or accelerate the tempo of either the first or second song in order to bring the two in sync … first song can be maintained, and the second song can be adjusted to match that tempo until the first song ends ¶ [0166]-[0167], Users can also configure the player interface to utilize cross-fading volume (i.e., increasing the volume of a second song and decreasing the volume of a first song) when transitioning between songs ¶ [0168]).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein transitioning from the first portion of an audio track to the second portion of an audio track comprises looping at least a part of one of the two portions (Gilbert: loop a portion of a first or a second song when mixing the two songs together during a transition from the first song to the second song. … a certain set of measures (e.g., measures 4-16) of a second song can be looped continuously until a first song finishes playing ¶ [0168]).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein transitioning from the first portion of an audio track to the second portion of an audio track comprises aligning rhythmic notes of the two portions of audio tracks (Gilbert: better sync two songs having different musical characteristics like tempo, volume, pitch, key, etc. The delivery component 108 can also align the rhythm of a first song and a second song such that a first beat of a first song aligns with a first beat of a second song in order to smooth the transition between the two songs ¶ [0166]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein: the audio tracks are categorized according to one or more of, a tempo, an approachability, an engagement, and a sentiment; wherein: the tempo is defined as beats per minute; the approachability is defined by one or more of chord progression, time signature, genre, motion of melody, complexity of texture, and instrument composition; the engagement is defined by one or more of dynamics, pan effect, harmony complexity, vocabulary range, and word count; and the sentiment is defined by one or more of chord type, chord progression, and lyric content; and wherein the system determines the portions of the plural audio tracks at least in part based on the categorization (Gilbert: Gilbert: tempo, feel, mood, vocal type, instrumentation, and playing style ¶ [0007], song artist, similar artist, favorite artists, song name, similar song, song genre, location and/or purpose for song performance, time of day for song performance, song tempo, song mood, song feel, song and/or band geography, song instrument, song popularity, song era, song playlist, playlist author, ¶ [0010]. Also see ¶ [0017], [0023], [0073], [0098], [0114]-[0115], [0117], [0119], [0154], [0155], [0167]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert disclose, wherein the contextual information is updated and the music set is modified based on a change in the contextual information (Gilbert: playlist flow…changes in the playlist ¶ [0122], adjusting the tempo ¶ [0167], mixing behavior during playback ¶ [0170]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert teach the limitations of claim 17, for substantially the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, and 7-9, because claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations in a computer processor/instruction format.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kreifeldt, Richman, O'Driscoll and Gilbert teach the limitations of claim 18, for substantially the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 10, and 11, because claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations in a computer processor/instruction format.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
8/27/2026
/MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights