DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 8/20/25.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected as set forth below.
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 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 1-2, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 1-2, 13-14, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claims 1, 13 recites: A remake audition apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and executable memory for storing at least one program executed by the one or more processors, wherein the at least one program receives an audition participation application for at least one piece of music corresponding to at least one music copyright, and determines remake audition results based on content evaluation for content corresponding to the audition participation application.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method and apparatus, which are statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of conducting a music audition and determining a winner of the audition (a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g. including social activities) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. That is, other than reciting the one or more processors and executable memory, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as social activities, i.e. conducting a music audition and determining a winner of the audition. For example, an audition organizer is capable of conducting a music audition in which participants submit their renditions of copyrighted music, organizing a vote, and determining the winner of the music audition.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2, 14, which further recite the abstract idea of conducting a music audition and determining a winner of the audition.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer comprised of one or more processors and executable memory.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
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.
Claims 1-2, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070244749 to Speiser in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220215076 to Goldston.
As per claim(s) 1, 13, Speiser teaches:
A remake audition method, performed by a remake audition apparatus, comprising: ([0022], “As shown, system 100 includes a contest manager 110 linked to a plurality of client devices 150 (e.g., devices 150A-150Z) via a network 105.”; [0066], “FIG. 9 is a block diagram of a computer host 901 that may be used to perform part or all of the functionality of contest manager 110 (and/or may be used as a client system 150) according to one embodiment. As shown, host 901 may include one or more processors 905, such as processors 905A and 905B. Program instructions that may be executable to implement the functionality of the contest manager 110 described above may be partly or fully resident within a memory 910 at a given point in time, and may also be stored on a storage device 940.”)
receiving an audition participation application for at least one piece of music; ([0023], “In some embodiments, the contest may allow contestants 160 to submit various types of media objects, such as recorded audio or video files, as contest entries, which may be collected by media manager 125 and stored in storage 130.”; [0041], “A number of different contest types corresponding to different themes or categories may be supported in various embodiments. For example, song-related contests in various embodiments may allow users to submit "karaoke" entries (in which amateur singer contestants 160 sing along to lyrics of a song while the lyrics of the song are displayed and the original singers' voices are muted or reduced in volume), "lip sync" entries (in which contestants match their lip movements to previously recorded music), and/or "a capella" entries (in which contestants sing without accompanying musical instruments).”)
determining remake audition results based on content evaluation for content corresponding to the audition participation application. ([0044], “Administration module 120 may be configured to support a variety of different selection mechanisms for ranking contest entries and determining contest winners in various embodiments. A contest creator 170 may specify, e.g., at the time a contest creation request is submitted, a population of users or voters 165 who are to be allowed to vote for entries of a given contest”)
Speiser does not explicitly teach, but Goldston teaches:
music corresponding to at least one music copyright; ([0010], “For example, media content items such as artwork, audio files, video files, lyrics or other works can be associated with a nonfungible token (NFT) (e.g., via a pointer to the NFT) and one or more NFT's associated with such content item or items can be managed via the media content management system. The NFT could embody or represent the work being transferred, which could be, for example, ownership rights or exclusive or non-exclusive license rights (e.g., any or all of the rights to use, display, perform, reproduce, create derivative works, etc.) in and to the work that are being sold.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goldston to the known invention of Speiser would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such license rights features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the at least one piece of music so it corresponds to at least one music copyright results in an improved invention because applying said technique allows for renditions of music that are copyrighted to be submitted to the audition, thus improving the overall user engagement of the invention.
As per claim(s) 2, 14, Speiser teaches:
remake audition results including remake content; ([0044])
Goldston teaches:
remake content corresponding to neighboring copyright or secondary copyright of the music copyright. ([0010])
Claims 3-4, 6-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070244749 to Speiser in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220215076 to Goldston, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220398636 to Fikes.
As per claim(s) 3, 15, Goldston teaches:
wherein the music copyright, the neighboring copyright, or the secondary copyright corresponds to a Non-Fungible Token (NFT); ([0010])
Speiser as modified does not explicitly teach, but Fikes teaches:
wherein the music copyright, the neighboring copyright, or the secondary copyright corresponds to a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), value of which is determined based on a utility token, which is a cryptocurrency; ([0038], “In some implementations, the system may provide the artist and any joint authors or co-artists with the legal documentation to assign the copyright in the song to the artist/system as needed to legally enable the system to create an NFT of the song and stream it to users, while creating a right to receive compensation via financial non-fungible tokens distributed to accounts in the system associated with the artist and any joint authors or co-artists.”; [0054], “The ability to assign a valuation to the NFT of the song post-critique whether in currency or cryptocurrency may further facilitate speculation in the FNFTs associated with songs on the system by critical artists and members of the listening public (and others who can purchase the FNFTs) along with speculation activity in the cryptocurrency itself.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fikes to the known invention of Speiser as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such non-fungible token features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention so the music copyright, the neighboring copyright, or the secondary copyright corresponds to a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), value of which is determined based on a utility token, which is a cryptocurrency, results in an improved invention because applying said technique enables the copyright to be easily traded on the marketplace, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
As per claim(s) 4, Speiser teaches:
wherein the audition participation application is performed in exchange for an entry fee; ([0051], “In some embodiments, for example, an entry fee may be required for each submitted entry, and the prize awarded to the winner or the top-rated contestants may be based at least in part on the total amount collected in the form of entry fees.”)
Fikes teaches:
a rights NFT, value of which is determined based on the utility token; ([0038], [0054])
Speiser as modified does not explicitly teach, but Goldston teaches:
a remake rights NFT; ([0010])
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goldston to the known invention of Speiser as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such non-fungible token features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the entry fee so it is a remake rights NFT results in an improved invention because applying said technique allows the entry to be easily traded on the marketplace, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
As per claim(s) 6, Speiser teaches:
wherein the audition participation application corresponds to at least one of remake audition types that include a first type corresponding to a new arrangement or cover of the at least one piece of music and a second type corresponding to singing or playing of the at least one piece of music; ([0041])
As per claim(s) 7, Speiser teaches:
wherein the remake audition types further include a third type corresponding to short-form content for the at least one piece of music; ([0040], “More detailed content type specifications may be indicated during contest creation in some embodiments: e.g., in one implementation, a contest may be limited to videos of no longer than five minutes duration.”)
Furthermore, Applicant attempts to further limit the method by describing characteristics of the remake audition types. However, this is representative of non-functional descriptive material as characteristics of the remake audition types does not result in a functional relationship with the invention and therefore cannot be used to differentiate Applicant's invention from the prior art invention. See MPEP 2111.05; In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.”). Specifically, the steps of submitting and receiving the audition participation application is carried out the same way regardless of the remake audition type associated with the audition participation application: there is no evidence the characteristics of the remake audition types changes the efficiency or the accuracy or any other characteristic of the submitting/receiving. See Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (“Here, the descriptive material (SEQ ID NOs) recited in the claims is not functional material like the data structures in Lowry. There is no evidence that SEQ ID NOs 9-1008 functionally affect the process of comparing a target sequence to a database by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic of the comparison. Rather, the SEQ ID NOs are merely information being manipulated by a computer; the SEQ ID NOs are inputs used by a computer program that calculates the degree of similarity between a target sequence and each of the sequences in a database. The specific SEQ ID NOs recited in the claims do not affect how the method of the prior art is performed – the method is carried out the same way regardless of which specific sequences are included in the database (emphasis added).”)
As per claim(s) 8, Speiser teaches:
providing a correlation interface, wherein the correlation interface correlates at least part of audition results corresponding to the first type and at least part of audition results corresponding to an audition type equivalent to the second type; ([0040]-[0041], “Contest manager 110 may be configured to support contests for a wide variety of content types in various embodiments. For example, a particular contest may be limited to entries that combine video with audio, entries that consist of audio alone, video alone (e.g., "silent" video), still images, text, or a combination of any desired media object types that can be submitted over a network such as the Internet. More detailed content type specifications may be indicated during contest creation in some embodiments: e.g., in one implementation, a contest may be limited to videos of no longer than five minutes duration, or the file size of photography entries may be limited”)
As per claim(s) 9, Speiser teaches:
wherein the correlation interface sets at least part of the audition results corresponding to the first type or at least part of the audition results corresponding to the second type as a correlation object and generates a correlation result corresponding to the correlation object based on correlation logic; ([0040]-[0041])
As per claim(s) 10, Speiser teaches:
wherein the correlation logic correlates the correlation object and the correlation result by using first attribute analysis results for multiple attributes corresponding to the correlation object and second attribute analysis results for multiple attributes corresponding to the correlation result; ([0040]-[0041], The Examiner notes that the multiple detailed contest/content type specifications are equivalent to the multiple attributes.)
As per claim(s) 11, Speiser teaches:
wherein the content evaluation is performed based on preference voting by evaluators and evaluation results from an expert group, and at least part of the evaluators share in at least part of rewards corresponding to the neighboring copyright or secondary copyright; ([0046], “In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of using votes submitted by voters 165 to determine contest results, a panel of experts may be selected to participate in the process of selecting the winners of a contest.”; [0055], “In some embodiments, administration module 120 of contest manager 110 may be configured to implement a voter reward scheme, in which, for example, voters 165 that most accurately predict contest outcomes are provided with monetary or non-monetary rewards.”)
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070244749 to Speiser in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220215076 to Goldston and United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220398636 to Fikes, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200202311 to Allen.
As per claim(s) 5, Fikes teaches:
a fund accrued based on the neighboring copyright or secondary copyright. ([0039]-[0041], “Following the provision of the evidence of ownership of the copyright in the song to the system, the system may, in various method implementations, conduct an independent intellectual property rights check of the song (step 10) to detect evidence of plagiarism or other copying in the content of song. This IP rights check may be carried out by the system itself or the system may utilize the resources of a third party performing rights organization service provider to carry out this analysis, such as, by non-limiting example, the Harry Fox Agency, Rumble Fish, or any other performing rights verification/clearing service. In some method implementations, the system receives a certain amount of currency or cryptocurrency as an upload fee from the artist (10 USD in a particular implementation). The funds from this upload fee go to fund the operation of the musical distribution system itself. Either prior to or contemporaneously with the completion of the IP rights check in step 10, the system receives funds from an account associated with the artist for a desired number of critiques for the song by critical artists associated with the system (step 12). The system may receive the funds in the form of currency issued by a governmental agency or as cryptocurrency.”)
Speiser as modified does not explicitly teach, but Allen teaches:
wherein value of the utility token is adjusted based on a token stabilization fund; ([0007], “The method can further include maintaining the reserve tokens in a fixed size reserve pool and a variable size investor pool. The reserve tokens can be distributed within at least one of the reserve pool and the investor pool to stabilize the utility token values.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Allen to the known invention of Speiser as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cryptocurrency features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the utility token so the value of the utility token is adjusted based on a token stabilization fund results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the value of the token is stabilized so they are a reliable currency, thus improving the overall usability of the invention (Allen, [0002]).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070244749 to Speiser in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220215076 to Goldston and United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220398636 to Fikes, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20230040545 to Dorogusker.
As per claim(s) 12, Fikes teaches:
an NFT, value of which is determined based on the utility token; ([0038], [0054])
Speiser as modified does not explicitly teach, but Dorogusker teaches:
wherein the remake content is hosted using hardware resources corresponding to a user who owns a co-ownership node NFT. ([0054], “In some embodiments, the multi-media platform 108 can allow sharing and/or editing of media (e.g., mixing, and/or remixing music) within the context of a media streaming service.”; [0125], “The NFT component 206 can be configured to generate (or mint) an NFT for one or more media content in near real time, according to user's preferences (e.g., specific blockchain, expiration time, user's preferences, user's location (e.g., if it is detected that a user is operating in a wallet on a different blockchain) and the context of the conversation (or live media content) between the host and the audience member. The NFT component 206 can be configured to capture a unique description of the media content and/or to provide a persistent link or reference to the media content associated with the NFT. The NFT component 206 can also be used to create a smart contract used to govern the behavior of the NFT. For example, a smart contract can govern instances when the NFT can be transferred to another party or when a media content can be divided into a smaller portion such as a sample, or when and how the media content can be performed.”; [0074], “In some embodiments, the environment 200 can include a multi-media platform 108, an NFT platform 242, a finance platform 244, and a social media platform 230 and user devices (host computing device 102, audience member client device 110, and artist computing device 224). While FIG. 2 illustrates these several platforms, it will be appreciated by those of skill in the art that one or more of these platforms might not be needed to perform some functions supported by the environment illustrated in FIG. 2. Furthermore, while FIG. 2 illustrates a logical arrangement of various components, e.g., components 202 to 244, that can perform various respective functions, that the present the present technology is not limited to the arrangement illustrated. For example, one or more services depicted as being part of the finance platform 244 could be part of the multi-media platform 108.”, The Examiner notes that as stated above the functionality of the NFT platform can be incorporated into the multi-media platform 108.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dorogusker to the known invention of Speiser as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such non-fungible token features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the utility token so the remake content is hosted using hardware resources corresponding to a user who owns a co-ownership node NFT results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the entity that is hosting the remake content has the right to host the content, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20210365526 to Sachson discloses an invention for managing access to digital content in a virtual environment using virtual content rights, including: providing a virtual content rights database comprising data associating a user of the virtual environment with the virtual content rights acquired with respect to the digital content; receiving a request from a device of the user for assignment of the virtual content rights of the digital content, wherein the user uses the device to interface with the processor; updating the virtual content rights database to indicate the assignment of the virtual content rights to the user; receiving data from the device of the user holding the virtual content rights to digital content including songs to create a virtual mix tape having at least one of the songs; and updating the virtual content rights database to indicate sharing of the virtual mix tape by the user within the virtual environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
