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 Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
The response filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are amended and claims 14-17 were added. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Previous rejections to claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC 112b were withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. The previous rejections to claims 1-13 under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. The previous rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 were withdrawn as necessitated by amendments. New rejections have been made to claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 17 under 35 USC 102 under Rottler et al, and to claims 3 and 5 under 35 USC 103 under Rottler et al in view of Panchenko et al.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/28/2023 were accepted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rottler et al (US 20110173539 A1; filed 1/13/2010; hereinafter Rottler).
With regards to claim 1, Rottler et al discloses a method for rendering an audio stream as part of an interactive digital service (Rottler et al, abstract: “adaptively varying audio feedback data”), the method comprising:
detecting, by an audio content rendering equipment, a physical interaction between a user and the audio content rendering equipment while rendering a first audio stream, the physical interaction indicating intent to zoom within the first audio stream (Rottler et al, paragraph 39: “the evolving and devolving of audio feedback verbosity may be an intelligent adaptive activity performed by an electronic device in response to user inputs (e.g., direct user inputs…” paragraph 125: “For instance, based on user actions and or user-defined preferences (e.g., preferences 96) the specific actions for devolving and/or evolving audio feedback may be dynamic and adaptive. By way of example, as shown in FIG. 9 above, the detection of a user action in the form of a playback termination event may cause the device 10 to increase the rate of devolution (e.g., devolves verbosity faster due to the indication that the user is not interested in the audio feedback corresponding to the terminated event);” “verbosity” is described in Rottler, paragraph 33);
and, in response to the detection, generating, according to the detected physical interaction, an instruction (Rottler et al, paragraph 125: “the detection of a user action in the form of… event may cause the device 10…” The user actions being specific user inputs, like audio and touch inputs are further described in paragraphs 43, 47, 48; paragraph 48: “audio inputs from a user (e.g., voice commands) by way of an audio input device (now shown in FIG. 1), which may be translated into instructions or commands for performing a certain task or function on the device 10”);
transmitting, by the audio content rendering equipment, the generated instruction to an electronic audio content provision device to trigger the electronic audio content provision device to determine at least one context parameter of use of the audio content rendering equipment (Rottler, paragraph 39: “the contextual importance of a user interface event may be adaptive or learned based upon previous device behavior and/or how a user interacts with the device during previous occurrence(s) of the user interface event”) and to obtain, based on the at least one context parameter, a second audio stream as part of the interactive digital service, the second audio stream corresponding to a zoom within the first audio stream and carrying a level of information higher or lower than that of the first audio stream, the level of information corresponding to an accuracy of a content such that the second audio stream comprises a more detailed or concise view of the content of the first audio stream; receiving the second audio stream from the electronic audio content provision device; and rendering, by the audio content rendering equipment, the second audio stream (Rottler, paragraph 125: “evolving and devolving of audio feedback verbosity in response to user inputs and/or in response to external stimuli;” paragraph 33: “As mentioned above, the term “verbosity,” as used herein, shall be understood to refer to the “wordiness” of the audio information provided by the audio feedback, and may encompass non-verbal types of audio feedback, such as clicks, beeps, chirps, or other various types of non-verbal sound effects. For example, audio feedback having a high level of verbosity may output several spoken words (e.g., playing a previously stored audio file containing the spoken words, or using text-to speech synthesis in real time), while audio feedback having a lower level of verbosity may output fewer spoken words or, in some cases, a non-verbal tone (e.g., no spoken words).”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Rottler discloses wherein the at least one context parameter comprises a parameter specific to the user or the audio content rendering equipment (Rottler, paragraph 39: “the contextual importance may be user-specified, such as via set of configurable user preference settings on the electronic device”), or a parameter characterizing an environment in which the audio content rendering equipment is used.
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Rottler discloses transmitting, to the electronic audio content provision device, information associated with the instruction and representing an audio content rendered at a moment of the interaction (Rottler, paragraph 62: “the set of audio items corresponding to the event 88 may vary in levels of verbosity, wherein each level may be referred to as a “step.” Thus, as defined above, “stepping down” the audio feedback may refer to decreasing the verbosity of the audio feedback, while “stepping up” the audio feedback may refer to increasing the verbosity of the audio feedback.” The step up or down requires the information associated with the previous level of verbosity).
Claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Rottler discloses at least one button configured to generate a signal representative of activation of one of said at least one button, or a sensor configured to detect a movement of the rendering equipment or of the user (Rottler, paragraph 47: “the display 22 may be provided in conjunction with the above-discussed touch-sensitive mechanism (e.g., a touchscreen) that may function as part of a control interface for the device 10.”).
With regards to claim 8, Rottler et al discloses a method for providing an audio stream as part of an interactive digital service, the method being implemented by an electronic audio content provision device, the method comprising (Rottler et al, abstract: “adaptively varying audio feedback data”):
receiving an instruction issued by an electronic audio content rendering equipment (Rottler et al, paragraph 39: “the evolving and devolving of audio feedback verbosity may be an intelligent adaptive activity performed by an electronic device in response to user inputs (e.g., direct user inputs…”);
determining at least one context parameter of use of the electronic audio content rendering equipment based on the instruction (Rottler, paragraph 39: “the contextual importance of a user interface event may be adaptive or learned based upon previous device behavior and/or how a user interacts with the device during previous occurrence(s) of the user interface event);
obtaining, based on the at least one context parameter, a second audio stream as part of the interactive digital service, the second audio stream corresponding to a zoom within a first audio stream and carrying a level of information higher or lower than that of the first audio stream, the level of information corresponding to an accuracy of a content such that the second audio stream comprises a more detailed or concise view of the content of the first audio stream (Rottler, paragraph 125: “evolving and devolving of audio feedback verbosity in response to user inputs and/or in response to external stimuli;” paragraph 33: “As mentioned above, the term “verbosity,” as used herein, shall be understood to refer to the “wordiness” of the audio information provided by the audio feedback, and may encompass non-verbal types of audio feedback, such as clicks, beeps, chirps, or other various types of non-verbal sound effects. For example, audio feedback having a high level of verbosity may output several spoken words (e.g., playing a previously stored audio file containing the spoken words, or using text-to speech synthesis in real time), while audio feedback having a lower level of verbosity may output fewer spoken words or, in some cases, a non-verbal tone (e.g., no spoken words).”);
and transmitting data relating to the second audio stream to the electronic audio content rendering equipment (Rottler, paragraph 60: “the audio input devices 80 and the output transmitter 82 may operate in conjunction to function as the audio receiving and transmitting elements of a telephone.”).
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Rottler et al discloses A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic audio content rendering equipment, cause the at least one processor to implement the method of claim 1 (Rottler, paragraph 41: “software elements (including computer code, such as programs and/or firmware, stored on a computer-readable medium) or a combination of both hardware and software elements”… one or more processors”).
With regards to claim 11, which depends on claim 8, Rottler et al discloses A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of the electronic audio content provision device, cause the at least one processor to implement the method of claim 8 (Rottler, paragraph 41: “software elements (including computer code, such as programs and/or firmware, stored on a computer-readable medium) or a combination of both hardware and software elements”… one or more processors”).
With regards to claim 12, which depends on claim 8, Rottler discloses wherein obtaining the second audio stream comprises: adding or removing at least one portion of audio content to or from a portion of the first audio stream (Rottler, Fig. 7: the audio stream item has multiple levels, each of which includes different amounts of audio data (e.g. “Genius is not available”, “No genius”)).
With regards to claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Rottler discloses wherein the level of information corresponds to a level of complexity and/or to a level of granularity (Rottler, Fig. 7: the audio stream item has multiple levels, each of which includes different amounts of audio data (e.g. “Genius is not available”, “No genius”); the amount of words is interpreted as a level of complexity).
With regards to claim 17, which depends on claim 8, Rottler discloses the first audio stream is associated with at least one first context parameter of use of the audio content rendering equipment (Rottler, Fig. 7: the audio stream item has multiple levels, each of which includes different amounts of audio data (e.g. “Genius is not available”, “No genius”); the level is interpreted as the context parameter);
determining the at least one context parameter comprises updating a value of the at least one first context parameter according to the instruction (Rottler, paragraph 62: “Thus, as defined above, “stepping down” the audio feedback may refer to decreasing the verbosity of the audio feedback, while “stepping up” the audio feedback may refer to increasing the verbosity of the audio feedback.”); and
obtaining the second audio stream comprises applying the updated at least one first context parameter to the first audio stream to generate the second audio stream (Rottler, paragraph 62: “an audio item 100 corresponding to a desired level of verbosity may be selected…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottler et al in view of Panchenko et al (US 7676799 B1; filed 6/10/2005).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Rottler et al does not disclose wherein the instruction is a binary instruction.
However, Panchenko et al teaches wherein the instruction is a binary instruction (Panchenko, summary, paragraph 3: “The method includes identifying a plurality of instructions in the executable code matching a predetermined instruction pattern, assessing whether it is possible to form the binary number with fewer instructions than a number of instructions in the instruction pattern, and transforming the plurality of instructions into transformed instructions when the binary number can be loaded…”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Rottler et al and Panchenko et al such that the instructions are binary instructions. This would have enabled the invention to reduce the size of transmissions by reducing the size of the instructions (Panchenko et al, summary, paragraph 3: “the binary number can be loaded in fewer instructions than the number of instructions in the instruction pattern”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 3, Bromand et al discloses wherein the first audio stream is associated with a level of parameterization, and the instruction is an instruction interpreted as aiming to obtain a content of a higher or lower level of information (Rottler, paragraph 125: “evolving and devolving of audio feedback verbosity in response to user inputs and/or in response to external stimuli;” paragraph 33: “As mentioned above, the term “verbosity,” as used herein, shall be understood to refer to the “wordiness” of the audio information provided by the audio feedback, and may encompass non-verbal types of audio feedback, such as clicks, beeps, chirps, or other various types of non-verbal sound effects. For example, audio feedback having a high level of verbosity may output several spoken words (e.g., playing a previously stored audio file containing the spoken words, or using text-to speech synthesis in real time), while audio feedback having a lower level of verbosity may output fewer spoken words or, in some cases, a non-verbal tone (e.g., no spoken words).”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 with regards to the previous 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections to claims 1-13 under Bromand et al have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner agrees with applicant that the amendments overcome the previous rejections over Bromand. However, upon additional search and consideration, new rejections have been made over Rottler et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims were amended so the previously identified abstract ideas are not claimed. Thus the rejections are withdrawn. Thus the argument is persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached on 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights