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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments received 04/03/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-5 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyama (US 3708602 A) in view of HIROKI (JP 2016180795 A, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hiyama discloses an information processing system for a musical instrument including a plurality of operators (combination of 5, 6 and 7 in Fig. 1) each corresponding to a different note pitch (col. 4, lines 8-15: the root pitch of a chord is the fundamental note that defines the chord and gives it its name), the information processing system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors communicatively connected to the one or more memories and that execute the stored instructions (col. 1, lines 38-55: by inherency, there must be one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors communicatively connected to the one or more memories and that execute the stored instructions to implement the electronic musical instrument which enables a chord or bass performance to be automatically played) to: acquire a detection signal corresponding to each manipulated operator, among the plurality of operators, that has been manipulated by a user (col. 1, lines 26-35 and 44-48; see also discussion of keyboards 5, 6, 7 and gate circuits 13/14 in Fig. 1); determine a manipulation amount or intensity of each of the plurality of operators based on the acquired detection signal (gate circuits 13/14 identifies a manipulation amount, such as change vs. no-change, of each of the plurality of operators comprising a plurality of keys in the lower keyboard 6 and one key in the pedal keyboard 7; see also Figs. 2A-2C and related text); and determine a chord that corresponds, from among the plurality of operators, to a combination of detected two or more operators manipulated by the user, the determining the chord including determining a root note pitch included in the chord based on the manipulation amount or intensity of each of the detected two or more manipulated operators (col. 4, lines 9-68).
Hiyama does not mention explicitly: wherein: the manipulation amount is an amount of displacement of the operator caused by the user manipulating the operator, and the manipulation intensity is an intensity of the user manipulating the operator.
HIROKI discloses an information processing system for a musical instrument including a plurality of operators and a processor (Figs. 1 and 2) configured to perform: determining a chord that corresponds, from among the plurality of operators, to a combination of detected two or more operators manipulated by the user, the determining the chord including determining a root note pitch included in the chord based on the manipulation amount or intensity of each of the detected two or more manipulated operators, wherein the manipulation amount is an amount of displacement of the operator caused by the user manipulating the operator, and the manipulation intensity is an intensity of the user manipulating the operator (para. 0002-0004, 0022, 0031-0033).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate HIROKI’s technique of chord portamento processing into Hiyama to achieve the claimed invention recited in instant claim 1, as an intended use of the HIROKI’s invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for assisting beginner users unfamiliar with keyboard operations to easily play a portamento since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Hiyama discloses: wherein the one or more processors, in determining the chord, determine the root note pitch from a manipulated operator, among the detected two or more manipulated operators, with a greatest manipulation amount (col. 4, lines 9-68: Hiyama’s system identifies the root note pitch of the chord from the depressed key on the pedal keyboard which has a non-zero amount of change, by inherency, such a non-zero amount/degree of change is the greatest manipulation amount in reference to changes of the depressed keys in the lower keyboard).
Regarding claim 3, Hiyama discloses: wherein the one or more processors, in determining the chord, determine the root note pitch from a manipulated operator, among the detected two or more manipulated operators, with a highest manipulation intensity (see discussion for claim 2 above).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 9-11, the combination of Hiyama HIROK renders the claimed invention obvious (see discussion of claims 1-3 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 8 and 12 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.
Reasons for Allowance
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 4 is the inclusion of the limitation: wherein: the one or more processors, in identifying the chord, input, into a trained model, input data including the manipulation amount or intensity of each of the detected two or more manipulated operators, and the trained model has learned relationships between: manipulation amounts or intensities for each of two or more operators; and chords. It is this limitation found in the claim, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 1, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claim 4 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 8 is the inclusion of the limitation: wherein: wherein: the one or more processors, in identifying the chord, input, into a trained model, input data including the manipulation amount or intensity of each of the detected two or more manipulated keys, and the trained model has learned relationships between: manipulation amounts or intensities for each of two or more keys; and chords. It is this limitation found in the claim, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 5, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claim 8 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 12 is the inclusion of the limitation: wherein: the identifying the chord inputs, into a trained model, input data including the manipulation amount or intensity of each of the detected two or more manipulated operators, and the trained model has learned relationships between: manipulation amounts or intensities for each of two or more operators; and chords. It is this limitation found in the claim, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 9, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claim 12 distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights