DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: A claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period (single sentence). Claims 1, 3, and 7 are comprised of multiple sentences. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the band/artist". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for incorporating the above errors from their respective parent claim(s) by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AI Image – Guess the Song (as shown by NPL documents “AI Image – Guess the Song” and “80s Music by Dall-E Mini”, hereinafter referred to as AI Image and 80s Music, respectively) in view of Pestotnik (US 2009/0253476 A1).
Regarding claim 1, AI Image discloses a method for generating interactive illustrations based on song titles, comprising:
receiving a selection of a music genre or randomized challenge from a user (see AI Image pg 1., the user can select from the various quizzes, which include genres like 80s and 90s music);
using AI to dynamically select an artist and a set of their top songs within the chosen genre, with the set being selected from a larger pool of top songs as the user progresses to later levels (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows selecting artists and their songs from the 80s, the artist shown is Van Halen and the selected song is “Jump”);
generating visual illustrations corresponding to the selected song titles using AI technologies, such as DALL-E or similar models (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows AI generated images by DALL-E); and
displaying the AI-generated illustrations in a carousel format on a user interface (see 80s Music, pg. 1, going to the next question rotates the displayed image which can be described as a carousel format).
However, AI Image does not explicitly disclose providing multiple-choice options for the user to guess the song and artist based on each illustration.
Pestotnik teaches a trivia game and system including providing multiple-choice options for the user to guess the song and artist based on each illustration (see par. [0050], The correct answer and plurality of incorrect answers are used to present the trivia in the form of a multiple choice question to the audience). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of AI Image to use multiple choice answers as taught by Pestotnik so that the multiple choice answers may be used as a hint to help viewers guess the correct answer (see Pestotnik, par. [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Pestotnik teaches providing hints related to the band/artist or the song title, with the number of hints decreasing as the user progresses through the levels (see par. [0054], Facts may be used as hints when the audience is trying to guess the name of the artist for the currently playing song or other media. The hints provide an interesting and interactive source of additional information that keeps the game fast paced and keeps the audience engaged even if they do not immediately recognize the artist; also see par. [0261], The DJ is given discretion to select and display a hint; thus hints can be adjusted in order to make the game easier or more difficult).
Regarding claim 3, AI Image discloses enlarging illustrations for detailed viewing upon user request (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows the game being displayed on a web browser where the images can be enlarged by simply zooming in) and providing immediate feedback and scoring based on the user's guesses (see 80s Music, pg. 1, shows Score 0/20; additionally entering guesses produces feedback regarding whether the guess is correct or incorrect).
Regarding claim 4, AI Image discloses wherein the AI analyzes keywords and themes from the song titles to generate the visual illustrations (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows AI generated images for the song “Jump”).
Regarding claim 5, AI Image discloses wherein the user interface includes a start screen for genre selection, a game screen for viewing AI-generated illustrations and making guesses, and a score screen for displaying user performance (see AI Image pg. 1, shows start screen for genre selection; also see 80s Music pg. 1, shows game screen and the current score).
Regarding claim 6, Pestotnik teaches increasing the number of multiple-choice options as the user progresses, thereby increasing the difficulty level of the game (see par. [0261], The DJ is given discretion to…show multiple choice options; thus multiple choice options can be adjusted in order to make the game easier or more difficult).
Regarding claim 7, AI Image discloses a system for integrating music identification and visual art into an interactive game, comprising:
an AI model for dynamically selecting songs and artists based on user-selected genres, with the set of top songs being selected from a larger pool of songs as the user progresses to later levels (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows selecting artists and their songs from the 80s, the artist shown is Van Halen and the selected song is “Jump”);
an AI model for generating visual representations of the selected song titles (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows AI generated images by DALL-E);
a user interface displaying AI-generated illustrations and multiple-choice options for user interaction (see 80s Music, pg. 1, shows AI-generated images and game interface); and
a scoring mechanism for evaluating user guesses and providing feedback (see 80s Music pg. 1, shows game screen and the current score).
However, AI Image does not explicitly disclose multiple-choice options for user interaction, a hint mechanism for providing contextual hints to users based on the illustrations and the level of the game, and a difficulty adjustment mechanism that increases the challenge level by expanding the number of choices and reducing the number of hints as the user progresses.
Pestotnik teaches a trivia game and system including multiple-choice options for user interaction, a hint mechanism for providing contextual hints to users based on the illustrations and the level of the game, and a difficulty adjustment mechanism that increases the challenge level by expanding the number of choices and reducing the number of hints as the user progresses (see par. [0050], The correct answer and plurality of incorrect answers are used to present the trivia in the form of a multiple choice question to the audience; also see par. [0054], Facts may be used as hints when the audience is trying to guess the name of the artist for the currently playing song or other media. The hints provide an interesting and interactive source of additional information that keeps the game fast paced and keeps the audience engaged even if they do not immediately recognize the artist; also see par. [0261], The DJ is given discretion to select and display a hint, show multiple choice options, etc; thus hints and multiple choice options can be shown or adjusted in order to make the game easier or more difficult). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of AI Image to use multiple choice answers, hints, and difficulty adjustments as taught by Pestotnik so that the multiple choice answers may be used as a hint to help viewers guess the correct answer, keeps the game at a fast pace and continues to engage the audience even if they do not immediately know the correct answer to the trivia question, and enables trivia to be filtered based on a perceived level of difficulty (see Pestotnik, par. [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL document “Guess the Song Title from AI Generated image”, Smith Lewis et al. (US 10,861,344 B2), Goldenberg (US 8,753,184 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 2/26/2026