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
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/629,520 originally filed on April 8, 2024. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“an input mechanism” in claims 1, 3, and 12 (described in publication paragraph [0022]).
“a musical play module” in claim 1 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
“a lyrics synchronization module” in claim 1 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
“a gamified interface generation module” in claims 1, 6, and 8 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
“a user input processing module” in claim 1 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
“a feedback module” in claims 1 and 9 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
“a lyrics generation module” in claim 4 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
“a lyrics translation module” in claim 5 (no structure defined in specification, see 35 USC 112 rejection below).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
The claims recite the following:
“a musical play module configured to play a musical composition” in claim 1.
“a lyrics synchronization module configured to synchronize a plurality of lyrics” in claim 1.
“a gamified interface generation module configured to generate and display on the display a gamified interface” in claims 1, 6, and 8.
“a user input processing module configured to receive and process user input” in claim 1.
“a feedback module configured to provide feedback to the user” in claims 1 and 9.
“a lyrics generation module that employs machine learning techniques to generate the lyrics on-demand” in claim 4.
“a lyrics translation module configured to automatically translate the lyrics into different languages” in claim 5.
These limitations are not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, the specification fails to disclose the hardware and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the hardware and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed “modules” to perform the claimed functions. As such, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per MPEP §2181, to satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376, 95 USPQ2d 1673, 1682 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is appropriate if the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, or if there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850. A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be appropriate in the following situations when examining means-plus-function claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(1) when it is unclear whether a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(2) when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; and/or
(3) when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
In the present case, the claims recite the following:
“a musical play module configured to play a musical composition” in claim 1.
“a lyrics synchronization module configured to synchronize a plurality of lyrics” in claim 1.
“a gamified interface generation module configured to generate and display on the display a gamified interface” in claims 1, 6, and 8.
“a user input processing module configured to receive and process user input” in claim 1.
“a feedback module configured to provide feedback to the user” in claims 1 and 9.
“a lyrics generation module that employs machine learning techniques to generate the lyrics on-demand” in claim 4.
“a lyrics translation module configured to automatically translate the lyrics into different languages” in claim 5.
Here, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. Therefore, the claims are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 10, recites the limitation “the musical play.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or 10, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1 or 10.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 6, 8-10, 15, 17, and 18, recites the limitation “the synchronized lyrics.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1, 6, 8-10, 15, 17, or 18, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1 or 10.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 10, recites the limitation “the correct synchronized lyrics.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or 10, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1 or 10.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 6, 9, 10, 15, and 18, recites the limitation “the user.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1, 6, 9, 10, 15, or 18, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1 or 10.
Claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, recites the limitation “the gaming activity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 6, 10, or 15, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 9, 15, and 18, recites the limitation “the correct tile.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 15, or 18, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine) and claim 10 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “interactive musical gameplay,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (of exemplary claim 10):
“playing a musical composition;
synchronizing a plurality of lyrics associated with the musical composition to the musical play;
generating and displaying a gamified interface comprising a plurality of playful elements (tiles), each tile containing a portion of the synchronized lyrics;
receiving and processing user input indicating a selection of one or more of the tiles; and
providing feedback to the user based on the user input, the feedback indicating whether the selected one or more tiles correspond to the correct synchronized lyrics.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a portable computing device,” “an input mechanism,” “a touch-sensitive device,” “a musical play module,” “a lyrics synchronization module,” “a gamified interface generation module,” “a user input processing module,” “a feedback module,” “a lyrics generation module,” and “a lyrics translation module” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “interactive musical gameplay” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a portable computing device,” “an input mechanism,” “a touch-sensitive device,” “a musical play module,” “a lyrics synchronization module,” “a gamified interface generation module,” “a user input processing module,” “a feedback module,” “a lyrics generation module,” and “a lyrics translation module” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “system” comprises “a portable computing device with a display and an input mechanism” along with several modules. The “portable computing device” is briefly described in publication paragraph [0002] as, “portable computing devices, such as smartphones and tablets.” The display is not further defined in the specification. The “input mechanism” is described in publication paragraph [0022], “the input mechanism may be a touch-sensitive device, and the user input may be received through touch interactions on the touch-sensitive device. In some embodiments, the user input may be received through gestures detected by the input mechanism.” The “touch-sensitive device” is not further defined in the specification. Each of the modules, “a musical play module,” “a lyrics synchronization module,” “a gamified interface generation module,” “a user input processing module,” “a feedback module,” “a lyrics generation module,” and “a lyrics translation module,” are only functionally described in the specification, with no indication of the structure of the modules or what algorithms they implement to accomplish their respective functionalities.
These elements are reasonably interpreted as being a generic computer or generic computing components, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1 and 10.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelovsky (US 5,613,909) in view of Sarig et al. (hereinafter “Sarig,” US 2012/0238450).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 10, Stelovsky discloses a system for interactive musical gameplay (Stelovsky Abstract, “An interactive system is provided for playing a game… This system can be used for motivating instructional games based on music video, movies, animated cartoons and karaoke”), comprising:
a … computing device with a display and an input mechanism (see Stelovsky Fig. 1, showing computer, TV, and pointing device);
a musical play module configured to play a musical composition (Stelovsky col. 8 lines 34-36, “The video window displays the music video. The video is synchronized with a song's audio as well as with the song's lyrics.”);
a lyrics synchronization module configured to synchronize a plurality of lyrics associated with the musical composition to the musical play (Stelovsky col. 8 lines 34-36, “The video window displays the music video. The video is synchronized with a song's audio as well as with the song's lyrics.”);
a gamified interface generation module configured to generate and display on the display a gamified interface comprising a plurality of playful elements (tiles), each tile containing a portion of the synchronized lyrics (Stelovsky col. 8 lines 60-64, “When the user switches into the "game" mode, the game area is filled with a score field a set of tiles that can be selected by the user. The game is a well known "fill-in-the-blanks" game. The tiles are labeled with words extracted from the lyrics”);
a user input processing module configured to receive and process user input from the input mechanism, the user input indicating a selection of one or more of the tiles (Stelovsky col. 8 line 64 through col. 9 line 6, “In the lyric's field each of these words has been replaced by a dot pattern. The user's task is to fill in as many missing words of the song's lyrics as possible. As shown in FIG. 7b, the game program plays the entire sequence of the presentation's time segments and highlights the current segment in the lyrics and the segment bar. Clicking on one of the tiles (the only relevant interaction in the "game" mode), is evaluated as an attempt to fill the tile's label into the lyrics. The user's choices are limited by the time span of the current segment.”); and
a feedback module configured to provide feedback to the user based on the user input, the feedback indicating whether the selected one or more tiles correspond to the correct synchronized lyrics (Stelovsky col. 9 lines 6-12, “If s/he selects a tile whose label is missing from the current time segment, the score is incremented, the label replaces the dot pattern in the lyrics field and the tile is taken off the game area. On the other hand, clicking on a tile that does not fit into the highlighted segment decreases the score. Removing the tiles reveals the singer's picture hidden underneath.”).
Stelovsky does not explicitly teach that the computing device is a portable computing device.
However, Sarig discloses that the computing device can be a portable computing device (Sarig [0009], “One embodiment has been developed for the iPhone platform, but the game is also exportable to any operating system, whether Microsoft, Linux or dedicated OS of the Flash platform of Adobe, which enables offering the game on most Nokia Phones as well as on mobile Internet devices (MID's), other mobile computing devices and PC's using the flash platform.”).
Sarig is analogous to Stelovsky, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Stelovsky, to include that the computing device is a portable computing device, as taught by Sarig, since Sarig discloses using a device-independent platform such as Adobe Flash to make the game available to both mobile devices and personal computers, which would have been a simple substitution of one known platform for another to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 11, Stelovsky does not explicitly teach wherein the input mechanism is a touch-sensitive device, and the user input is received through touch interactions on the touch-sensitive device.
However, Sarig discloses wherein the input mechanism is a touch-sensitive device, and the user input is received through touch interactions on the touch-sensitive device (Sarig [0005], “The user may burst the bubbles using any controls associated with the electronic device. Such controls include: buttons, touch-screen, mouse, keyboard, a joystick, and computer-associated writing tool (e.g. pencil).”).
Sarig is analogous to Stelovsky, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Stelovsky, to include wherein the input mechanism is a touch-sensitive device, and the user input is received through touch interactions on the touch-sensitive device, as taught by Sarig, since Sarig discloses using a device-independent platform such as Adobe Flash to make the game available to many types of devices including touch-sensitive devices, which would have been a simple substitution of one known platform for another to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Stelovsky does not explicitly teach wherein the user input is received through gestures detected by the input mechanism.
However, Sarig discloses wherein the user input is received through gestures detected by the input mechanism (Sarig [0005], “The user may burst the bubbles using any controls associated with the electronic device. Such controls include: buttons, touch-screen, mouse, keyboard, a joystick, and computer-associated writing tool (e.g. pencil),” wherein tapping a touch-screen is also a form of gesture input).
Sarig is analogous to Stelovsky, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Stelovsky, to include wherein the user input is received through gestures detected by the input mechanism, as taught by Sarig, since Sarig discloses using a device-independent platform such as Adobe Flash to make the game available to many types of devices including gesture input devices, which would have been a simple substitution of one known platform for another to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Stelovsky in view of Sarig discloses a lyrics translation module configured to automatically translate the lyrics into different languages (Stelovsky col. 14 lines 19-22, “The textual track can be generated rather than recorded (e.g. using a direct translation into another language.)”).
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Stelovsky in view of Sarig does not explicitly teach wherein the gamified interface generation module is configured to reset the gaming activity when the user fails to select the correct tile corresponding to the synchronized lyrics.
Stelovsky does disclose wherein the gamified interface generation module is configured to “decrease the score” when the user fails to select the correct tile corresponding to the synchronized lyrics (Stelovsky col. 9 lines 6-12, “If s/he selects a tile whose label is missing from the current time segment, the score is incremented, the label replaces the dot pattern in the lyrics field and the tile is taken off the game area. On the other hand, clicking on a tile that does not fit into the highlighted segment decreases the score.”). However, Stelovsky does not “reset the gaming activity” when the user fails to select the correct tile corresponding to the synchronized lyrics.
The Applicant’s use of resetting the gaming activity instead of decreasing the score is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that resetting the gaming activity instead of decreasing the score solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that assessing any type of setback to a player when they fail to select the correct tile would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stelovsky in view of Sarig to obtain the system as specified in claim 6, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stelovsky in view of Sarig.
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Stelovsky in view of Sarig discloses wherein the plurality of playful elements (tiles) are pregenerated and stored in a database associated with the musical composition (Stelovsky col. 2 lines 55-60 shows the system includes hard disk and CD-ROM or tape; also Stelovsky col. 9 lines 54-56, “The Multimedia Game does not need to be stored locally, but could reside at a remote location (e.g. a movie store, a cable programming/distribution station, etc.)”; also Stelovsky col. 14 lines 11-24, “It is neither dependent on the format in which data is stored nor on the format in which it is generated and presented. Tracks can be stored in analog format rather than digitally and any compression techniques can be used… The textual track can be generated rather than recorded (e.g. using a direct translation into another language.) Any of the tracks of presentation can be generated remotely and transmitted using any existing communication means,” while Stelovsky does not explicitly mention a “database,” under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, any computerized storage of the lyrics for retrieval may be interpreted as storage in a database).
Regarding claim 8, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Stelovsky in view of Sarig discloses wherein the plurality of playful elements (tiles) are generated on-demand by the gamified interface generation module based on the synchronized lyrics (Stelovsky col. 8 lines 60-64, “When the user switches into the "game" mode, the game area is filled with a score field a set of tiles that can be selected by the user. The game is a well known "fill-in-the-blanks" game. The tiles are labeled with words extracted from the lyrics”).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelovsky in view of Sarig, and in further view of Witherspoon et al. (hereinafter “Witherspoon,” US 2021/0027761).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Stelovsky in view of Sarig does not teach a lyrics generation module that employs machine learning techniques to generate the lyrics on-demand based on the musical composition.
However, Witherspoon discloses a lyrics generation module that employs machine learning techniques to generate the lyrics on-demand based on the musical composition (Witherspoon [0020], “The text can also be passed to a machine learning model (e.g., a neural network model) trained to recognize newly encountered idioms and expressions. For instance, the translation is refined based on preserving cultural nuance, rhyming scheme and syllable count,” the machine learning model generates lyrics based on preserving cultural nuance, rhyming scheme, and syllable count).
Witherspoon is analogous to Stelovsky in view of Sarig, as both are drawn to the art of generating song lyrics. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Stelovsky in view of Sarig, to include a lyrics generation module that employs machine learning techniques to generate the lyrics on-demand based on the musical composition, as taught by Witherspoon, since it uses a known technique of machine learning to improve similar devices in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelovsky in view of Sarig, and in further view of Perkins (US 2005/0037827).
Regarding claim 9, and substantially similar limitations in claim 18, Stelovsky in view of Sarig does not explicitly teach wherein the feedback provided by the feedback module is a visual correction that highlights the correct tile corresponding to the synchronized lyrics when the user selects an incorrect tile.
However, Perkins discloses wherein the feedback provided by the feedback module is a visual correction that highlights the correct tile corresponding to the synchronized lyrics when the user selects an incorrect tile (Perkins [0043], “Activating this option causes the program to highlight the correct answer upon the incorrect selection by the user.”).
Perkins is analogous to Stelovsky in view of Sarig, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Stelovsky in view of Sarig, to include wherein the feedback provided by the feedback module is a visual correction that highlights the correct tile corresponding to the synchronized lyrics when the user selects an incorrect tile, as taught by Perkins, in order to allow the player to learn the correct answer while playing the game (Perkins [0043]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715