Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/390,022

Remote Control of Stringed Electric Instruments

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 30, 2021
Examiner
SCHREIBER, CHRISTINA MARIE
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
768 granted / 963 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
996
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 963 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 9 contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 9 and 19, it is recited that the remote control receives output audio directly communicated from one or more pickups of the electric stinged instrument. This limitation is not found in the Specification or specifically shown in the Drawings. The Applicant cites paragraph [0026] as disclosing such a limitation, however, said paragraph discloses communication between elements but no disclosure of output audio being directly communicated from the pickups to the remote. In paragraph [0031] it is disclosed that an output signal is carried from the floor controller to an amplifier, in paragraph [0032] it is disclosed that an output signal is carried from the floor controller to another controller, and in paragraph [0041] it is disclosed that audio signals are communicated from the guitar to a selector switch, but there is no mention of the remote control receiving output audio directly from the pickups. 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 9-19 is 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. Claim 9, please clarify whether the “one or more instruments” are related to the “electric stringed instrument”, whose output audio is altered by the remote control. Claim 19, line 3, please clarify whether “output audio” is the same as, related to, or different from the output audio recited in preceding claim 9. The remaining claims depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations of preceding claim 9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Aivbrosino (US 2006/0011051). In terms of claim 9, Aivbrosino teaches a system (see Figure 7) comprising a remote control (790) comprising electronics for altering output audio of an electric stringed instrument (700) (see Figures 7 and 8, and paragraphs [0062], [0096] and [0109]) and communicatively coupled to the electric string instrument, wherein the electronics of the remote control are configured to remotely control one or more instruments (see paragraphs [0034] and [0062]), effect output audio from one or more pickups (see paragraphs [0062] and [0096]), overrides local audio settings, or replace functionality of internal circuitry, of the electric stringed instrument (see paragraph [0109], remote control has priority while instrument being played), and control one or more other devices (MIDI device, see paragraph [0095]). As for claim 10, Aivbrosino teaches the electronics including pickup selection (see references cited above). As for claim 11, Aivbrosino teaches the remote control comprising a floor controller (see Figure 7 and 8). As for claim 12, Aivbrosino teaches the remote control comprising one or more indicators (see the light indictor in Figure 8) in communication with indicators on the instrument (see paragraphs [0094]-[0096]). As for claim 13, Aivbrosino teaches the remote control controlling one or more electronics, such as pickup selection, sound settings. effects and tempo (see paragraphs [0062], [0096] and [0109]). As for claims 14 and 15, Aivbrosino teaches the remote control as MIDI capable and controlled by a MIDI controller (See paragraphs [0095] and [0101]). As for claim 16, Aivbrosino teaches a remotely controlled electric stringed instrument (700). As for claim 18, Aivbrosino teaches the remote control enabled by a control (780 (enables connection between devices), 742, 752, 7620 on the electric stringed instrument (see paragraph [0062], were in the LEDs enable receiving/transmitting between control and instrument). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aivbrosino in view of that which is well known in the art. As for claim 17, Aivbrosino teaches the electric stringed instrument and the remote control connected wirelessly through jack (780), but fails to explicitly teach the devices connected by a wire or cord. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to connect the devices through a wire instead of wirelessly, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Connecting the devices through a wire or cord would not change the functionality of the system, and the instrument and remote control would perform the same as disclosed by Aivbrosino and recited in the claimed invention. Further, connecting a remote control device such as a pedal through a wired connection is well known in the art, as can be seen in the European publication to Andersen (EP 3316252 A1), the US patent application publications to Rockett (US 2005/0252363) and Juskiewiez (US 2004/0144241) and the US patent to Marshall (4,748,887). As for claim 19, Aivbrosino teaches communication between the remote and the stringed instrument (see references cited above), but fails to explicitly teach a control on the remote control that enables the communication (i.e. a power or start control). However, the presence and use of an on/off switch or power switch is well known in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement into the design of Aivbrosino, given such an addition of a switch or control would not alter the functionality of the remote control while enabled, and if the remote is off, local controls can be engaged and given priority. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejection of claim 9 has been amended to address the Applicant’s amendments and remarks. As stated above, Aivbrosino teaches the electronics of the remote control are configured to remotely control one or more instruments (see paragraphs [0034] and [0062]), effect output audio from one or more pickups (see paragraphs [0062] and [0096]), overrides local audio settings, or replace functionality of internal circuitry, of the electric stringed instrument (see paragraph [0109], remote control has priority while instrument being played), and control one or more other devices (MIDI device, see paragraph [0095]). Aivbrosino further teaches that the guitar or stringed instrument provides an output signal via an output port (see end of paragraph [0061]), and provides access port outputs (see paragraph [0095]); therefore, if the Applicant can show that the limitation of receiving audio outputs from the instrument is indeed disclosed within their Specification, Aivbrosino provides for such direct communication through the disclosed ports. In fact, Aivbrosino teaches the entire system as communicatively interconnected (see Abstract and paragraph [0008]). Further, with regards to receiving output from the guitar and controlling one or more other devices, Aivbrosino teaches that an IR receiver within the guitar and transmitter in the remote allows, not only for the communication of output between the guitar and remote, but also for the selection of data for storage and sending commands to an external IR MIDI device (see paragraphs [0095]-[0096]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner, in particular, the US patent application publication to Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0261606)(see Figures 1 and 3, and paragraphs [0045]-[0050], [0061], [0109], [0113] and [0115]). See also, the European publication to Andersen (EP 3316252 A1), the US patent application publications to Rockett (US 2005/0252363) and Juskiewiez (US 2004/0144241) and the US patents to Marshall (4,748,887) and Phoenix (5,834,671). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. 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. /CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 10/16/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2021
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 04, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 31, 2025
Response Filed
May 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586554
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO EXTRACT A PITCH-INDEPENDENT TIMBRE ATTRIBUTE FROM A MEDIA SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580985
ELEVATOR SYSTEM WITH A MULTIPURPOSE EDGE-GATEWAY AND METHOD FOR DATA COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565401
ELEVATOR SWITCH MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565402
MULTI-CAR ELEVATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567395
MUSIC GENERATION METHOD, MUSIC GENERATION APPARATUS AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 963 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month