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 .
Acknowledgements
Applicant’s response filed March 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-5 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6 and 11-16 are examined below.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: where applicant recites “calling preset data mapped to currently displayed portrait,” it appears that applicant intends to recite “calling preset data mapped to the digital portrait” or similar.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: where applicant recites “the exhibition method further comprises,” it appears that applicant intends to recite “the method further comprises” or similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd Paragraph
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 6 and 11-16 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 that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with errors. Examples of errors in the claims follow.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the limitations “display module,” “voice acquisition module,” “processing module,” “human-computer interaction interface,” “portrait upload component,” “user’s wake-up operation” (claim 6), and “video upload component” (claim 16) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further regarding claim 6, applicant’s recitation “in response to the portrait upload component being triggered, receiving an uploaded digital portrait by the portrait upload component” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear how “receiving” can be done in response to an event of triggering a software component.
Claim 16 contains language similar to the recitation in claim 6 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claim 16 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Further regarding claim 6, the recitation "a character whose mouth shape and head pose are consistent with the audio" is subjective, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "consistent" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining whether the characters features are consistent with the audio and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term "consistent" in this context is highly subjective. Therefore, what type of mouth shapes and head poses are intended to be included or excluded are not clear.
Regarding claim 12, applicant’s recitation “wherein the first sub-network is trained by: extracting … inputting … inputting … setting …” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Because there is no step of training that is positively recited in the method, it is unclear whether “extracting … inputting … inputting … setting …” are required steps in the method or merely provide a history as to how the sub-network was trained.
Claims 13-15 contain language similar to the recitation in claim 12 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claims 13-15 are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The examiner finds that the claims are so unclear and have so many §112 rejections that ascertaining what is the claimed subject matter and construing the claims cannot be done at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). Once the §112 and other rejections are corrected, the claims will then be reevaluated in light of the prior art so as to ascertain their patentability. See MPEP §2173.06.
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang (US 2024/0412440 A1) discloses:
picking up voice information of a viewer after the photo frame is started
"As described herein, an input device 718 may include, but is not limited to, a button, a controller, a keyboard, a mouse, a microphone, a touch-sensitive display, and/or any other type of input device. In some examples, based on receiving an input, the user device(s) 712 may generate input data 720 representing the input and/or the factor." [0069]
processing a character in a currently displayed portrait based on the voice information to make the character in the portrait interact with the viewer
"In some examples, the input data 720 may then be used to control the facial animations associated with the animated character. For example, and referring back to the example of FIG. 1, the input data 720 may be used to generate emotions data 110 representing the manipulated vector. As such, the third neural network(s) 112 may generate the animation data 114 using the output data 106 and the emotions data 110 representing the manipulated vector. This way, the character 116, which may be animated using the display(s) 714" [0070]
displaying the portrait in an interaction process
Vats (WO 2017137947 A1) discloses as follows:
picking up voice information of a viewer after the photo frame is started
"receiving a message to be enacted by the caller, wherein the message comprises at least the text or the emotional and movement command" page 4 (alternately, there is inherently audio to be picked up from the other caller)
processing a character in a currently displayed portrait based on the voice information to make the character in the portrait interact with the viewer
"- processing the message to extract or receive an audio data related to voice of the person, and a facial movement data related to expression to be carried on face of the person,- processing the image, the audio data, and the facial movement data" page 4
displaying the portrait in an interaction process
"generating an animation of the caller enacting the message" page 4
Li (US 2020/0051303 A1) discloses a system for generating real-time avatars from a single neutral image.
Zhou (US 2021/0217219 A1) discloses a system for real-time portrait animation based on a single image.
Guitarte Perez (US 2006/0221083 A1) discloses a video calling system that conserves bandwidth by animating a facial image of the caller according to received audio.
Savchenkov (US 2020/0234690 A1) discloses a system for generating real-time video based on input text and a target image (see Fig. 3).
Sinha (US 2023/0351662 A1) discloses a system for rendering a face animation "from a single image of any arbitrary target face."
Du (9,898,849 B2) discloses a system for generating facial expressions to animate a character according to a script or audio. However, the input appears to require a video rather than a single image, and there is no mention of interaction with the viewer.
Chiang (TW M652806 U) discloses an interactive portrait system that can generate an interactive avatar from a single photo.
Wang (EP 4604064 A1) discloses an image processing method that animates a static image in response to audio content (songs). However, Wang fails to disclose applicant's claimed interactive features.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The claim amendment submitted March 3, 2026 contains at least one minor informality:
Text of added subject matter has not been shown by underlining as required by 37 CFR § 1.121(c)(2). See claim 6, lines 3-12 and 19-30, all of which is added subject matter, none of which is underlined.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim amendment has been entered, and the application is being examined on the merits. However, this makes examination of the claims very difficult, as it calls into question whether any other changes were made without proper annotation. For this reason, further claim amendments in this application that are not in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(c) will not be entered and will be treated as non-compliant amendments.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment. Note, however, the new rejections above.
The prior art rejection is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights