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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended. Claims 12-16 were previously withdrawn as they are directed to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
• paragraph [0024] recites "any other audio parameter know in the art of sound design"; "know" should read "known";
• paragraph [0034] recites "In some embodiments. the tool 507 includes the deep learning engine 517"; the period after "embodiments" should be a comma;
• paragraph [0047] recites "in some embodiment" twice, at "Also, in some embodiment, the user interface 700 provides for flagging" and at "In some embodiment, the output processor 523 is configured"; in each instance "embodiment" should read "embodiments";
• paragraph [0047] recites "through either the user interface 700 of through a DAW"; the second "of" should read "or";
• paragraph [0056] recites "an IGAI should have access to a vast of amount of data"; the phrase should read "a vast amount of data";
• paragraph [0056] recites "The curated data set, on the other hand, maybe be more specific"; "maybe be" should read "may be";
• paragraph [0057] recites "a custom tool that is engineered to processing specific types of input"; "to processing" should read "to process";
• paragraph [0059] recites "so that text corresponding to an images maps to the same area in the latent space"; "an images" should read "an image";
• paragraph [0059] recites "the text input can be in any form, including characters, emojis, ions, foreign language characters"; "ions" should read "icons";
• paragraph [0060] recites "input 1106 can be used to customized the way AI"; "customized" should read "customize";
• paragraph [0061] recites "an encoder 1108 takes input data and/or pixel space data and coverts into latent space data"; "coverts" should read "converts", and the phrase also appears to omit its object, for example "converts the input data into latent space data";
• paragraph [0062] recites "the input data maybe be processed to via a context analyzer 1126"; the phrase should read "may be processed via"; and
• paragraph [0062] recites "The structed metadata 1122 may be, for example, descriptive text"; "structed" should read "structured".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the recitation "wherein the different set of layers includes less layers than the reference set of layers" should read "wherein the different set of layers includes fewer layers than the reference set of layers", because the layers are a countable quantity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 to 11 and 17 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim or 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. The limitation for which the specification provides no written description is identified and discussed below.
Claim 1 recites that executing the artificial intelligence model to automatically generate a variation of the in-app asset includes "adjusting weighting between the nodes, the weighting associated with changes made to the respective feature of the at least one layer of the plurality of layers based on the contextual feature that result in the variation." Claim 17 recites the identical limitation for the artificial intelligence model of the claimed system. The specification does not describe this limitation, for two independent reasons.
First, the specification places every adjustment of weighting between neural nodes in the training of the artificial intelligence model, and not in the generation of a variation. Paragraph [0003] and paragraph [0054] describe adjusting one or more weightings between neural nodes within the artificial intelligence model as an operation of a separate method for training that model, shown as operation 1007 of Figure 10. Paragraph [0040] states that each interconnection between nodes has a numerical weight that can be learned. Paragraph [0041] describes the use of back-propagation algorithms and of stochastic gradient descent during the learning process to learn the weights for the interconnections between the nodes of the hidden layers so as to minimize a cost function. The generation flow is described in the opposite order. Paragraph [0034] and paragraph [0036] state that once the artificial intelligence model is sufficiently trained, the model can then be used to automatically generate variations of a reference multi-layer in-app asset, and the method of Figure 9, described at paragraph [0052], recites only operations 901, 903, 905, 907 and 909, none of which adjusts any weighting. The specification therefore does not convey that the inventor was in possession of a generating operation that itself includes adjusting weighting between the nodes.
Second, the specification associates the adjusted weightings with the reference version of the in-app asset as a whole, and not with the respective feature of a particular layer. Paragraph [0003] and paragraph [0054] state that the one or more weightings between neural nodes are adjusted to reflect changes made to the reference version of the in-app asset in order to arrive at the variation of the in-app asset in view of the contextual feature specified by the contextual communication. That is an association with the reference version taken as a whole. No passage of the specification associates a weighting between nodes with changes made to the respective feature of one layer of the in-app asset. The nearest disclosure is paragraph [0038], which states that each input node of the input layer is mapped to a corresponding instance of a multi-layer in-app asset for a particular contextual feature, the instance being defined by multiple layers and corresponding metadata. That passage maps the whole asset onto the input nodes; it does not attribute any weighting between nodes to an individual layer or to the feature that the layer defines. The layer-level operations that the specification does describe, at paragraph [0027], paragraph [0031] and paragraph [0053], are the adding, the removing and the modifying of layers and of their parameter settings. Those are operations performed on the in-app asset specification, not adjustments of weightings within the neural network.
The limitation is accordingly stated as a result to be achieved, namely a weighting that is associated with changes to the respective feature of a layer and that results in the variation, without the disclosure identifying how that association is formed or how the result is achieved. A claim may lack written description support where the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure here does not do so as to the identified limitation.
In the remarks filed June 15, 2026, applicant states that no new matter is added and that support for the amendments may be found in the original specification as filed, at least at Figures 5 and 7 to 9 and at paragraphs [0023], [0027], [0028] to [0032], [0035], [0047] and [0050]. Because applicant has pointed out where support is alleged to lie, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why a person skilled in the art would not recognize in that disclosure a description of the invention now claimed. See MPEP 2163.04; Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Those passages have been considered. They describe the layers of the in-app asset, the tool of Figure 5 and its inputs and outputs, the introduction of the neural network of Figure 6, and the review interfaces of Figures 7 and 8. Not one of them refers to weighting. Applicant has cited neither Figure 6 nor Figure 10, and none of paragraphs [0003], [0040], [0041] and [0054], which are the only four paragraphs in the specification that mention weighting at all, and each of which places the adjustment in training and associates it with the reference version of the in-app asset as a whole. Figure 9, which applicant does cite, is the generation method, and it contains no weighting operation.
The remainder of the amendment filed June 15, 2026 is supported by the original disclosure and is not rejected on this ground. This includes the recitation of nodes of a neural network, the recitation that the in-app asset includes a plurality of layers with each layer defining a respective feature, the qualifier that generation is based at least in part on the recited bases, the recitation of at least one layer of the plurality of layers as a basis for generation, and each of the amendments to claim 11.
Claims 2 to 11 depend from claim 1, and claims 18 to 20 depend from claim 17. Each incorporates the limitation identified above by dependency and is rejected for the same reason. No dependent claim supplies the missing description. Claim 18 comes closest, reciting that the variation of the in-app asset includes a different set of layers as compared to a reference set of layers that define the reference version and/or at least one different parameter setting within a layer common to both the reference version and the variation, but that recitation addresses the content of the generated variation rather than the adjusting of weighting between the nodes or the association of any weighting with the respective feature of a layer.
Claim Rejections - 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.
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 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 claims 1 and 17, each claim recites, as part of the limitation inserted by the amendment filed June 15, 2026, the following: wherein generating the variation includes adjusting weighting between the nodes, the weighting associated with changes made to the respective feature of the at least one layer of the plurality of layers based on the contextual feature that result in the variation. The referent of the closing phrase that result in the variation cannot be determined, and the limitation is therefore indefinite.
The verb result is plural; the singular would be results. The clause in which the phrase sits is drafted about one thing, the weighting, and the noun phrase the phrase immediately follows is likewise singular, the contextual feature. The plural verb agrees with neither. Neither of the two antecedents a reader would first reach for can therefore be the referent, and the reader is left to attach that result in the variation to one of the plural nouns appearing earlier in the same limitation. The limitation supplies three: the nodes, changes, and layers.
The choice is not immaterial, because each candidate states a different requirement. If the referent is changes, the claim requires that the changes made to the respective feature of the at least one layer be the changes that produce the variation, and the recitation based on the contextual feature qualifies those changes. If the referent is layers, the claim requires that the plurality of layers produce the variation, which is a requirement on the asset rather than on the changes. If the plural verb is instead a clerical error and the singular was intended, the claim requires either that the weighting produce the variation or that the contextual feature produce it, and those two are different again. Each reading is grammatically available, each yields a materially different scope, and nothing in the claim indicates which was meant. Where a claim recites more than one candidate antecedent, a reference back to one of them is indefinite when it is uncertain which was intended. See MPEP 2173.05(e); MPEP 2173.02, subsection II.
The specification does not resolve the question. Weighting between neural nodes is mentioned in four paragraphs, [0003], [0040], [0041] and [0054]. Each of them describes the adjustment of weightings during training of the artificial intelligence model, and the two that associate a weighting with anything, [0003] and [0054], associate it with changes made to the reference version of the in-app asset as a whole. No passage relates a weighting, a contextual feature, a set of changes or a set of layers to the production of a variation in the terms the clause uses, and no passage supplies the missing agreement. A claim is indefinite where it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, a person having ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claims 2 to 11 depend from claim 1 and claims 18 to 20 depend from claim 17. Each incorporates the indefinite limitation by dependency and is rejected on the same ground.
This ground is necessitated by the amendment filed June 15, 2026. The quoted clause appears in no earlier version of claim 1 or of claim 17; it was inserted in its entirety by that amendment, and the claims as they stood at the Office action mailed February 13, 2026 recited no weighting, no node and no layer. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, each claim recites that the in-app asset is defined by multiple layers, wherein each of the multiple layers defines a different aspect of the in-app asset. The scope of this limitation is unclear, because the claim from which each depends already recites the layered structure of the same in-app asset in different terms. Claim 1 and claim 17 each recite the in-app asset including a plurality of layers with each of the plurality of layers defining a respective feature of the in-app asset. Claims 2 and 18 do not state whether the recited multiple layers are the plurality of layers already recited in the parent claim or instead a further or different set of layers by which the in-app asset is additionally defined, and do not state whether the recited different aspect is the respective feature already recited in the parent claim or instead a characteristic other than that feature.
The open-ended transitional phrase of the parent claims compounds the uncertainty. Claim 1 and claim 17 each recite the in-app asset including a plurality of layers. That phrase is open-ended: it requires the in-app asset to have the recited plurality of layers but does not exclude further layers, so the parent claims leave the total set of layers of the in-app asset unbounded. Claims 2 and 18 then recite that the in-app asset is defined by multiple layers, a phrase directed on its face to what defines the asset rather than to what the asset includes. Because the parent set is open, a third reading opens that would not exist if it were closed: the multiple layers of the dependent claim may be the recited plurality of layers, may be that plurality together with the further layers the open transitional phrase permits, or may be some other set of layers altogether by which the asset is said to be defined. The claim does not say, and the shift from including to is defined by signals that a difference may be intended without stating what it is.
Each of these readings is reasonable and they differ materially in scope. On the first reading the claim adds no requirement beyond the parent claim; on the second and third the claim requires layers beyond those the parent claim recites, and a second kind of layer-defined characteristic. The difference is not immaterial, because claim 1 and claim 17 each require the variation to be generated based at least in part on at least one layer of the plurality of layers, so whether the layers recited in claims 2 and 18 are those same layers determines what the generating operation must act upon.
The specification does not resolve the ambiguity. The description uses both formulations without relating them. Paragraph [0023] states that each layer defines a particular feature or characteristic of the in-app asset, which is the vocabulary of claims 1 and 17, while paragraphs [0051], [0053] and [0054] set out the layered structure in the vocabulary of claims 2 and 18, and no passage states whether the multiple layers and different aspect of the one formulation are the plurality of layers and respective feature of the other. This rejection is not based on the absence of the claim wording from the description, because there is no requirement that the words of a claim match those used in the disclosure. See MPEP 2173.05(e), subsection II. The rejection is based instead on the inconsistent use of terms between a dependent claim and the claim from which it depends, which leaves the boundaries of the dependent claim uncertain. Inconsistencies in the meaning of terms or phrases between claims may render the scope of the claims uncertain. See MPEP 2173.03; Tvngo Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Electronics Inc., 861 Fed. Appx. 453, 459-60 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A claim is indefinite where it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, a person having ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).
For purposes of examination, claims 2 and 18 are interpreted as reading on the first alternative: the recited multiple layers are the plurality of layers recited in claim 1 and in claim 17 respectively, and the recited different aspect is the respective feature that each such layer defines, so that each layer defines an aspect of the in-app asset different from the aspects defined by the other layers. That interpretation is consistent with paragraph [0023], which describes each layer of the asset schema as including a layer description identifying the relevance of that layer to the in-app asset together with parameter settings that define some part of the in-app asset, and with paragraphs [0051] and [0053].
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that presenting the variation is performed in accordance with automatically culling at least one of the plurality of variations of the in-app asset. Claim 11 recites the limitation presenting the variation in the second clause of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 11 nor claim 1, from which it depends, recites any step of presenting the variation. The only step by which claim 1 makes the variation available for review is conveying the variation of the in-app asset for human assessment.
The absent antecedent is not a formal oversight in this claim, because the entire limitation that claim 11 adds is made conditional upon the manner in which the unrecited presenting step is performed. It is unclear whether presenting the variation is the conveying step of claim 1 called by another name, whether it is a further step that claim 11 adds by implication, or whether the automatic culling is required at all in a practice of the method in which no presenting occurs. The metes and bounds of the claim are therefore indeterminate. See MPEP 2173.05(e); In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). The specification does not resolve the question, because it likewise recites no step of presenting the variation. Paragraph [0052] describes an optional operation 907 for automatically culling at least one variation of the in-app asset and states that operation 907 is performed before the variation of the in-app asset is conveyed for human assessment in operation 909.
The claim is indefinite for a second and independent reason. The phrase in accordance with does not state what relationship it requires between the unrecited presenting and the recited culling. It may mean that the presenting is performed only after the culling has been carried out, so that the culling is a temporal precondition. It may mean that the presenting is confined to the variations that survive the culling, so that the culling determines what is presented. It may mean only that the presenting is somehow consistent with, or informed by, the culling, which states no requirement capable of being tested for infringement or for prior-art purposes. The phrase is relational and the claim identifies no relation. A limitation drawn in terms that do not permit a person of ordinary skill to determine what conduct is required is indefinite. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2173.02, subsection II.
The relationship between the variations that are culled and the variation that is conveyed is unclear for a third reason. Claim 1 recites generating a variation and conveying the variation of the in-app asset for human assessment, both in the singular. Claim 11 recites that the variation includes a plurality of variations and that at least one of that plurality is automatically culled for failing to satisfy acceptance criteria. Reading the two together, it cannot be determined whether the variation conveyed under claim 1 is the plurality less those culled, whether it is a single variation selected from those that survive the culling, whether it is the whole plurality notwithstanding the culling, or whether a variation that has been culled may nonetheless be conveyed. The recitation that a singular variation includes a plurality of variations is itself a shift in number that the claim does not explain. What claim 11 requires to be conveyed therefore cannot be determined.
For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as requiring that the plurality of variations generated by the artificial intelligence model be automatically culled, by the recited determination that at least one feature of a variation does not satisfy acceptance criteria for the in-app asset, before the variation is conveyed for human assessment as recited in claim 1. That interpretation is grounded in paragraphs [0043] and [0052], which describe the output processor implementing an auto-culling process on the generated variations against specified acceptance criteria before the variations are conveyed.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites that the in-app asset includes a plurality of layers with each of the plurality of layers defining a respective feature of the in-app asset. Claim 2 adds only that the in-app asset is defined by multiple layers, wherein each of the multiple layers defines a different aspect of the in-app asset. On the interpretation adopted for examination, the multiple layers of claim 2 are the plurality of layers that claim 1 already requires, and the different aspect that each such layer defines is the respective feature that claim 1 already requires each such layer to define. Claim 1 already requires the in-app asset to include more than one layer, and already requires each of those layers to define its own feature of the in-app asset. Claim 2 therefore specifies no limitation of the subject matter of claim 1 that claim 1 does not already contain, and is of improper dependent form. See MPEP 608.01(n), subsection III; MPEP 2173.05(f). Non-compliance with the fourth paragraph renders a dependent claim unpatentable rather than merely objectionable, so the defect is reached by rejection rather than by objection. Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
This rejection is entered EXPRESSLY IN THE ALTERNATIVE to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above. The two grounds are directed to the same claim and turn on the same pair of readings. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is that the relationship between the recitations of claim 2 and those of claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, because two reasonable and materially different readings of multiple layers and different aspect are available and the claim does not choose between them. This rejection applies the first of those two readings, which is the interpretation adopted for examination, and holds that on that reading claim 2 specifies no further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1. It is entered because that reading has been adopted, not because it is the only available one.
The consequence for applicant is as follows. Should applicant establish that the second reading is correct, so that the multiple layers of claim 2 are a set other than the plurality of layers of claim 1, this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) would be obviated and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) would remain to be answered. Should applicant instead resolve the ambiguity by conforming the recitations of claim 2 to those of claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) would be obviated and this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) would remain, because the conformed claim would add nothing to claim 1. An amendment giving claim 2 a limitation that claim 1 does not contain would answer both, provided it does so in terms whose relationship to the recitations of claim 1 is clear. Both grounds must be answered. This rejection is not made on the ground that there is merely a question as to the significance of the further limitation claim 2 adds, which would not be a proper basis. See MPEP 608.01(n), subsection III. It is made on the ground that on the interpretation adopted claim 2 adds no limitation at all.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in Remarks dated 6/15/2026 traversing the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 2/13/2026 are persuasive. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 2/13/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed in Remarks dated 6/15/2026 traversing the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 2/13/2026 are persuasive. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 2/13/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rios, US 2023/0020621 A1 (Jan. 19, 2023) (Abstract: A method of generating audio assets, comprising the steps of: receiving an input multi-layered audio asset comprising a plurality of audio layers, generating an input multi-channel image, wherein each channel of the input multi-channel image comprises an input image representative of one of the audio layers, training a generative model on the input multi-channel image and implementing the trained generative model to generate an output multi-channel image, wherein each channel of the output multi-channel image comprises an output image representative of an output audio layer, and generating an output multi-layered audio asset based on a combination of output audio layers derived from the output image).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANG FU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30pm ET.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571) 272-7212. 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.
/KC CHEN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights