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
This office action is in response to the amendments filed May 19, 2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 introduces new rejections under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite limitations have been introduced with this amendment. See the relevant section below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 11-15 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection relied upon in the prior Office action. Applicant’s arguments are only directed to the claim amendments, which add new limitations to the claims. However, in view of the 112(b) rejections, rejections of art have not been made. See the relevant section below.
Examiner encourages applicant to schedule an interview regarding any questions or uncertainties they may have to traverse any of the rejections made.
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 1-7 and 11-15 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 claim comprises the limitations “split the audio input into a plurality of segments by a preset time unit” and “control the motion of the face corresponding to a segment including a peak greater than or equal to a preset first size to be scaled up in proportion to either (i) an absolute difference from the preset first size or (ii) a ratio relative to the preset first size,”. However, examiner is uncertain on whether the segment introduced in the second limitation is a member of the plurality of the segments or if the segment is intended to be a different segment. Examiner suggests amending the language to be “a first segment of the plurality of segments” to better clarify that the segment is of the plurality of segments. For prior art examination, examiner will interpret the segment to be the above limitation.
Examiner also notes that the subsequent limitation regarding “a segment including a peak equal to or less than a preset second size” contains similar indefinite matter and is suggested to be amended as “a second segment of the plurality of segments” while also being given suggested interpretation for prior art examination.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim comprises the limitations “split the audio input into a plurality of segments by a preset time unit” and “control the motion of the face corresponding to a segment including a peak greater than or equal to a preset first size to be scaled up in proportion to either (i) an absolute difference from the preset first size or (ii) a ratio relative to the preset first size,”. It is unclear on what is meant by “a peak” and “a preset first size” in relation to an audio file segment. One having ordinary skill in the art would typically think of "a peak" as a peak in volume or amplitude or frequency, but there is no correlation in the disclosure to "a peak" in reference to any form of measurement except the "preset first size". However, a "size" in relation to an audio file segment as disclosed would typically be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to be the size of the audio file or the length of the audio file. It is possible that the "preset first size" and "a peak" could be in reference to a sound wave from the audio file segment, but applicant has made no such link in the disclosure and the claim language used in the claim is not commonly used in the art. Therefore, due to the lack of clarity from the entire specification, examiner cannot make a reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention and no prior art is presently applied. Furthermore, due to the indefiniteness of the claim, there is also no inclusion of allowable subject matter as examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim in order to determine allowable subject matter itself.
Examiner also notes that the subsequent limitation regarding “a segment including a peak equal to or less than a preset second size” contains similar indefinite matter as the matter above and is given a rejection for indefinite matter.
Regarding the claims dependent to 1, they are also rejected as being dependent on indefinite matter.
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 JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights