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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 1121(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 and 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, they recite the claim limitations: “extract a feature of the first ear of the subject from the image; extract a feature of the second ear of the subject from the image; compare at least the feature of the first ear and the feature of the second ear with a list of features; identify a first feature on the list of features that matches the feature of the first ear and a second feature on the list of features that matches the feature of the second ear; and provide stereo sound to the subject’s ears based on the first feature and the second feature” which are not supported by the specification. Applicant’s cited specification support for the amended limitations of claims 1 and 18 at para. [0031] simply recites “identifying and locating one or more ears of a user”; para. [0067] recites “receive[ing] a 3D representation of the ears of a captured subject”; para. [0076] recites “features such as facial features, body features, scenery features, or the like”; para. [0089] recites “the location of a subject's ears may be accurately determined”; para. [0008] recites “within the system, the feature optionally includes one or more ears of a subject captured in the first image”. Nowhere in the specification does it describe extracting specific features of the ears themselves and comparing these specific features to a reference list of ear features. Further, para. [0026] describes that “the features may include facial features such as eyes, pupils, cheekbones, nose, mouth outline, mouth corners, head outline, or the like, body features, animals, buildings, cars, room features such as door or window corners, scenery features or the like”; further, para. [0072] recites “If a human subject is captured, the feature list may include facial features, such as eyes or eye corners, nose, forehead, cheekbones, mouth, mouth corners, head outline, or the like. The features may also be a body feature, such as shoulders, hands, fingers, legs, or the like”. As seen from para. [0026] and [0072] of Applicant’s specification, the features as well as the feature list, are described as the body parts themselves, and not specific features/parts of an already detected body part, such as specific features of a detected ear; according to Applicant’s specification, “extracting” features is akin to simply detecting the ears in the image. Therefore, the claims are not supported by the specification since there is no support for extracting features of both ears (specification shows the feature extracted from the image of the human body/face is the ear itself), and there is no support for comparing an extracted feature of the ears to a list of features (specification shows the list of features are the different body parts themselves not a group of specific features for a single body part, such as the ear). Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 11, 13-18, 21, and 23-31 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 18 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, they recite the claim limitations: “extract a feature of the first ear of the subject from the image; extract a feature of the second ear of the subject from the image; compare at least the feature of the first ear and the feature of the second ear with a list of features; identify a first feature on the list of features that matches the feature of the first ear and a second feature on the list of features that matches the feature of the second ear; and provide stereo sound to the subject’s ears based on the first feature and the second feature” which is indefinite because it is unclear how specific features of two ears of a subject (human) can be extracted from a single image of the subject and then compared to a list of features; Applicant’s specification, at para. [0071], recites “a first image may be received, which is captured by the capture device of the first feature extracting device. The first image may be a still image, a frame of a video stream, a thermal image, or the like. The first image may capture a subject or a scene, including features such as facial features, body features, scenery features, or the like” so therefore the definition Applicant’s gives of an “image” is a still image does not include video; assuming this, the only possible way to take a (single) image of a human face that includes both ears would be to take an image of the human’s face looking forward at the camera, which means their ears are identifiable in the image but because they stick out on the sides no specific features of the ear could reasonably be extracted from the image; further, Examiner contends that the only possible type of imaging that would allow extraction of features of both ears of a human from a single, would be panoramic imaging such as the image below:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Applicant’s disclosure, fails to teach any type of panoramic imaging, similar to the image above and has not described any reasonable way of extracting features of both ears in a single image of a human subject; therefore, it is unclear and indefinite how the claims are executed for a single image. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 11, 13-18, 21, and 23-31 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 18 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Due to the written description issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and indefinite issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner cannot form a proper prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103. The closest prior art cited in the previous Office Action, dated 09/12/2025, is U.S. Patent Publication No.: 9,544,706 (Hirst).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL ADAM SHARIFF whose telephone number is 571-272-9741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on 571-272-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL ADAM SHARIFF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672