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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 7-11 filed 3/27/2026 with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hirotake et al. (JP 2020129040 A, August 27, 2020), hereinafter Hirotake, in view of Wallander (US 20130287227 A1, October 31, 2013), hereinafter Wallander.
Regarding claim 1, Hirotake '040 teaches an electronic musical instrument, comprising: a performance controller including a plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0048: "In the keyboard sound generation map 121 shown in Figure 11, each of the 88 keys on the keyboard 105, which has pitches ranging from "A0" to "C8", is associated with a generator section number "1" to "128" that identifies the generator section being use"); and at least one processor (Hirotake '040 ¶0006: "an electronic musical instrument according to the aspects of the present invention comprises… at least one processor"), configured to perform the following: instructing sound generation of a first musical tone in response to a first operation on one of the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes: one for when a key is pressed"); in response to a second operation on the same one of the plurality of performance elements during the sound generation of the first musical tone (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes… and one for when the key is pressed repeatedly to silence the sound…. during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound"), obtaining a first amplitude value of the first musical tone at a time of the second operation (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028 and fig. 3c below teaches level L2 as the first amplitude value of the first musical tone at a time of the second operation.), and obtaining a second amplitude value at which a second musical tone is to be sound-produced in response to the second operation on said one of the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0051: "The processor 101, acting as a parameter determination unit 112, determines the parameters in response to the received key press operation. The parameters are, for example, parameters for controlling the waveform generators 231, filters 233, and amplifiers 235 of lines L1 and L2, respectively. Based on these parameters, the processor 101 controls at least one of the pitch, frequency characteristics, and volume of the sound that instructs the sound to be produced."); determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028 teaches level L2 as the first amplitude value and "speed R5" as the determined parameter value.); and causing the first musical tone to decay based on the determined parameter value (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 fig. 3c below teaches the slope labeled as R5 as the decay based on the determined parameter value.).
Hirotake '040 does not explicitly disclose determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone based on a ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value.
However, Wallander teaches determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone (Wallander ¶0076: "For example, the envelope can here be made to have one or more tones gradually increase or decrease in strength during the time the one or more tones are presented (played back). The envelope can also determine how fast the one or more tones should die away when a user e.g. lets go of a key.") based on a ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value (Wallander ¶0060: "This parametric equalizer has a first gain G1"; Wallander ¶0061: "the sound signal is amplified with a second gain G2, which is dependent on the first gain G1"; Wallander ¶0131: "Then, the input coefficients a0, a1, a2 can be pre-multiplied with the power ratio value g2, being the power ratio equivalent to the logarithmic second gain G2, whereby amplification with the second gain G2 is performed by the parametric equalizer.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040 by adding the parameter value of Wallander to prevent different touches of one piano key producing sounds being perceived as uneven (Wallander ¶0016).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches an electronic musical instrument comprising the features of claim 1, including that the at least one processor adjusts the decay rate based on the parameter value with respect to at least one of a pitch, timbre, and volume of the first musical tone (the "decay rate of the first musical tone" as rejected in claim 1 inherently comprises "a volume of the first musical tone" as claimed in claim 5.).
Regarding claim 6, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches an electronic musical instrument comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hirotake '040 further teaches that the performance controller is a keyboard having a plurality of keys as the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0048: "In the keyboard sound generation map 121 shown in Figure 11, each of the 88 keys on the keyboard 105, which has pitches ranging from "A0" to "C8", is associated with a generator section number "1" to "128" that identifies the generator section being use"), wherein the first and second operations are key press operations on a same one of the plurality of keys in the keyboard (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes… and one for when the key is pressed repeatedly to silence the sound.").
Regarding claim 7, Hirotake '040 teaches a method executed by at least one processor in an electronic musical instrument that includes (Hirotake '040 ¶0006: "an electronic musical instrument according to the aspects of the present invention comprises… at least one processor"), in addition to the at least one processor, a performance controller including a plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0048: "In the keyboard sound generation map 121 shown in Figure 11, each of the 88 keys on the keyboard 105, which has pitches ranging from "A0" to "C8", is associated with a generator section number "1" to "128" that identifies the generator section being use"), the method comprising, via the at least one processor: instructing sound generation of a first musical tone in response to a first operation on one of the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes: one for when a key is pressed"); in response to a second operation on the same one of the plurality of performance elements during the sound generation of the first musical tone (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes… and one for when the key is pressed repeatedly to silence the sound…. during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound"), obtaining a first amplitude value of the first musical tone at a time of the second operation (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028 and fig. 3c below teaches level L2 as the first amplitude value of the first musical tone at a time of the second operation.), and obtaining a second amplitude value at which a second musical tone is to be sound-produced in response to the second operation on said one of the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0051: "The processor 101, acting as a parameter determination unit 112, determines the parameters in response to the received key press operation. The parameters are, for example, parameters for controlling the waveform generators 231, filters 233, and amplifiers 235 of lines L1 and L2, respectively. Based on these parameters, the processor 101 controls at least one of the pitch, frequency characteristics, and volume of the sound that instructs the sound to be produced."); determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028 teaches level L2 as the first amplitude value and "speed R5" as the determined parameter value.); and causing the first musical tone to decay based on the determined parameter value (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 fig. 3c above teaches the slope labeled as R5 as the decay based on the determined parameter value.).
Hirotake '040 does not explicitly disclose determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone based on a ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value.
However, Wallander teaches determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone (Wallander ¶0076: "For example, the envelope can here be made to have one or more tones gradually increase or decrease in strength during the time the one or more tones are presented (played back). The envelope can also determine how fast the one or more tones should die away when a user e.g. lets go of a key.") based on a ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value (Wallander ¶0060: "This parametric equalizer has a first gain G1"; Wallander ¶0061: "the sound signal is amplified with a second gain G2, which is dependent on the first gain G1"; Wallander ¶0131: "Then, the input coefficients a0, a1, a2 can be pre-multiplied with the power ratio value g2, being the power ratio equivalent to the logarithmic second gain G2, whereby amplification with the second gain G2 is performed by the parametric equalizer.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hirotake '040 by adding the parameter value of Wallander to prevent different touches of one piano key producing sounds being perceived as uneven (Wallander ¶0016).
Regarding claim 11, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches a method executed by at least one processor in a musical instrument comprising the features of claim 7 as discussed above, including that the decay rate is adjusted based on the parameter value with respect to at least one of a pitch, timbre, and volume of the first musical tone (the "decay rate of the first musical tone" as rejected in claim 1 inherently comprises "a volume of the first musical tone" as claimed in claim 5.).
Regarding claim 12, Hirotake '040 teaches a method executed by at least one processor in a musical instrument comprising the features of claim 7 as discussed above.
Hirotake '040 further teaches that the first and second operations are key press operations on a same one of a plurality of keys in a keyboard included in the electronic musical instrument (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes… and one for when the key is pressed repeatedly to silence the sound.").
Regarding claim 13, Hirotake '040 teaches a computer readable non-transitory storage medium storing therein instructions (Hirotake '040: "portable storage media such as HDDs (Hard Disk Drives), CD-ROMs (Compact Disc Read Only Memory), and DVDs (Digital Versatile Discs) may also be used"), the instructions causing at least one processor (Hirotake '040 ¶0006: "an electronic musical instrument according to the aspects of the present invention comprises… at least one processor") in an electronic musical instrument that includes, in addition to the at least one processor, a performance controller including a plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0048: "In the keyboard sound generation map 121 shown in Figure 11, each of the 88 keys on the keyboard 105, which has pitches ranging from "A0" to "C8", is associated with a generator section number "1" to "128" that identifies the generator section being use"), to perform the following: instructing sound generation of a first musical tone in response to a first operation on one of the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0027: "the amplifier envelope generator 236 outputs an amplifier envelope specified by an instruction from the processor 101 from among three amplifier envelopes… and one for when the key is pressed repeatedly to silence the sound…. during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound"); in response to a second operation on the same one of the plurality of performance elements during the sound generation of the first musical tone, obtaining a first amplitude value of the first musical tone at a time of the second operation (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028 and fig. 3c below teaches level L2 as the first amplitude value of the first musical tone at a time of the second operation.), and obtaining a second amplitude value at which a second musical tone is to be sound-produced in response to the second operation on said one of the plurality of performance elements (Hirotake '040 ¶0051: "The processor 101, acting as a parameter determination unit 112, determines the parameters in response to the received key press operation. The parameters are, for example, parameters for controlling the waveform generators 231, filters 233, and amplifiers 235 of lines L1 and L2, respectively. Based on these parameters, the processor 101 controls at least one of the pitch, frequency characteristics, and volume of the sound that instructs the sound to be produced."); determining a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028 teaches level L2 as the first amplitude value and "speed R5" as the determined parameter value.); and causing the first musical tone to decay based on the determined parameter value (Hirotake '040 ¶¶0027-0028: "First, when a key is pressed, the amplifier envelope starts at level L0, reaches level L1 at speed R1, then descends at speed R2 to maintain level L2… Furthermore, during rapid-fire sound silencing, the amplifier envelope moves towards level "0" at speed R5 in order to stop the current sound simultaneously with the processing of a new sound. The envelope detection circuit 212 detects the envelope of the waveform output by the section mixer 211." Hirotake '040 fig. 3c above teaches the slope labeled as R5 as the decay based on the determined parameter value.).
Hirotake does not explicitly disclose that the parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone is based on a ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value.
However, Wallander teaches that a parameter value for adjusting a decay rate of the first musical tone (Wallander ¶0076: "For example, the envelope can here be made to have one or more tones gradually increase or decrease in strength during the time the one or more tones are presented (played back). The envelope can also determine how fast the one or more tones should die away when a user e.g. lets go of a key.") is based on a ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value (Wallander ¶0060: "This parametric equalizer has a first gain G1"; Wallander ¶0061: "the sound signal is amplified with a second gain G2, which is dependent on the first gain G1"; Wallander ¶0131: "Then, the input coefficients a0, a1, a2 can be pre-multiplied with the power ratio value g2, being the power ratio equivalent to the logarithmic second gain G2, whereby amplification with the second gain G2 is performed by the parametric equalizer.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040by adding the parameter value of Wallander to prevent different touches of one piano key producing sounds being perceived as uneven (Wallander ¶0016).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hirotake '040 in view of Wallander, and further in view of Hirotake et al. (JP 2020064189 A, April 23, 2020), hereinafter Hirotake '189.
Regarding claim 2, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches an electronic musical instrument comprising the features of claim 1, including a parameter for adjusting a decay rate of a first musical tone based on a ratio of a first amplitude value to a second amplitude value.
Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) does not explicitly disclose that the parameter value is determined such that the closer the ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value is to 1, the faster the first musical tone decays.
However, Hirotake '189 suggests that the parameter value is determined such that the closer the ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value is to 1, the faster the first musical tone decays (Hirotake ¶0054: "The CPU 210 corrects the amplitude maintenance rate obtained in step S105 in accordance with the velocity value actually detected at the time of key release. As a result, the amplitude is adjusted so that the larger the acquired velocity value at the time of key release, i.e., the faster the key release speed, the smaller the amplitude maintenance rate (the larger the amplitude decay rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040 (as modified by Hirotake '040) by adding the faster musical tone decays of Hirotake '189 to prevent different touches of one piano key producing sounds being perceived as uneven (Wallander ¶0016).
Regarding claim 8, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches a method executed by at least one processor in a musical instrument comprising the features of claim 7 as discussed above.
Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) does not explicitly disclose that the parameter value is determined such that the closer the ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value is to 1, the faster the first musical tone decays.
However, Hirotake '189 suggests that the parameter value is determined such that the closer the ratio of the first amplitude value to the second amplitude value is to 1, the faster the first musical tone decays (Hirotake ¶0054: "The CPU 210 corrects the amplitude maintenance rate obtained in step S105 in accordance with the velocity value actually detected at the time of key release. As a result, the amplitude is adjusted so that the larger the acquired velocity value at the time of key release, i.e., the faster the key release speed, the smaller the amplitude maintenance rate (the larger the amplitude decay rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hirotake '040 (as modified by Wallander) by adding the faster musical tone decays of Hirotake '189 to prevent different touches of one piano key producing sounds being perceived as uneven (Wallander ¶0016).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hirotake '040 in view of Wallander, and further in view of Carpenter (US 20040025672 A1, February 12, 2004), hereinafter Carpenter.
Regarding claim 3, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches an electronic musical instrument comprising the features of claim 1, including a parameter for adjusting a decay rate of a first musical tone based on a ratio of a first amplitude value to a second amplitude value.
Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) does not explicitly disclose that the parameter value is determined by the following equation: parameter value = 100/(1 + |log2 (a/b)|), where a is the first amplitude value, and b is the second amplitude value.
However, Carpenter teaches a musical parameter that is expressed as the equivalent of log2 (a/b) (Carpenter ¶0131: "Cents deviations c between two frequencies are usually calculated by the formula c=1200*loge(f2/f1)/loge(2), where f2 and f1 are the frequencies being compared." Here, Carpenter teaches a logarithmic equation involving a ratio, which in a rearranged form, appears as: c = 1200*log2(f2/f1)), where 1200 is a constant representing the number of cents in a musical octave.).
Although Carpenter does not explicitly disclose a parameter value that equals 100/(1 + |log2 (a/b)|), incorporating Carpenter's logarithmic control variable into a sign-agnostic form that is bounded by a 1-100 control scale represents use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP § 2141(III), Rationale C.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) by adding Carpenter's routine optimization of employing a logarithm to map an exponential function onto a linear control space (Carpenter ¶0131-0133).
Regarding claim 9, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches a method executed by at least one processor in a musical instrument comprising the features of claim 7 as discussed above.
Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) does not explicitly disclose that the parameter value is determined by the following equation: parameter value = 100/(1 + |log2 (a/b)|), where a is the first amplitude value, and b is the second amplitude value.
However, Carpenter teaches a musical parameter that is expressed as the equivalent of log2 (a/b) (Carpenter ¶0131: "Cents deviations c between two frequencies are usually calculated by the formula c=1200*loge(f2/f1)/loge(2), where f2 and f1 are the frequencies being compared." Here, Carpenter teaches a logarithmic equation involving a ratio, which in a rearranged form, appears as: c = 1200*log2(f2/f1)), where 1200 is a constant representing the number of cents in a musical octave.).
Although Carpenter does not explicitly disclose a parameter value that equals 100/(1 + |log2 (a/b)|), incorporating Carpenter's logarithmic control variable into a sign-agnostic form that is bounded by a 1-100 control scale represents use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP § 2141(III), Rationale C.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040 (as modified by Wallander) by adding Carpenter's routine optimization of employing a logarithm to map an exponential function onto a linear control space (Carpenter ¶0131-0133).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hirotake '040 in view of Wallander, and further in view of Otsuka (US 5094138 A, March 10, 1992), hereinafter Otsuka.
Regarding claim 4, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches an electronic musical instrument comprising the features of claim 1.
Wallander further suggests that in response to each operation on the performance controller, the at least one processor reads out waveform data that corresponds to a strength of the operation from a plurality of waveform data in a memory (Wallander ¶0016: "When utilizing separate samples for separate levels of loudness, e.g. for sampling a piano, samples were collected for each one of a number of loudness levels for each piano key. Basically, each piano key was pressed a number of times with differing force.").
Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) does not explicitly disclose that the at least one processor causes the first musical tone to decay faster when a first waveform data read out in response to the first operation is the same as a second waveform data read out in response to the second operation than when the first waveform data is different from the second waveform data.
However, Otsuka suggests that the at least one processor causes the first musical tone to decay faster when a first waveform data read out in response to the first operation is the same as a second waveform data read out in response to the second operation than when the first waveform data is different from the second waveform data (Otsuka col. 2, lines 25-33: "a changing means (4), responsive to a detection by the first detecting means (1) that the first and second musical tones are the same musical tone, for changing a generated volume of the musical generating channel whereto either the first musical tone or the second musical tone has been assigned, to the composite generated volume or the value equivalent to that composite generated volume which is calculated by the calculating means (3)." Reducing the volume of the first tone would inherently decay the first tone faster.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) by adding Otsuka's volume adjustment to avoid absorbing the second tone into the first tone (Otsuka col. 2, lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 10, Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) teaches a method executed by at least one processor in a musical instrument comprising the features of claim 7 as discussed above.
Wallander further suggests that in response to each operation on the performance controller, waveform data that corresponds to a strength of the operation is read out from a plurality of waveform data in a memory (Wallander ¶0016: "When utilizing separate samples for separate levels of loudness, e.g. for sampling a piano, samples were collected for each one of a number of loudness levels for each piano key. Basically, each piano key was pressed a number of times with differing force.").
Hirotake '040 (in view of Wallander) does not explicitly disclose that the first musical tone is caused to decay faster when a first waveform data read out in response to the first operation is the same as a second waveform data read out in response to the second operation than when the first waveform data is different from the second waveform data.
However, Otsuka suggests that the first musical tone is caused to decay faster when a first waveform data read out in response to the first operation is the same as a second waveform data read out in response to the second operation than when the first waveform data is different from the second waveform data (Otsuka col. 2, lines 25-33: "a changing means (4), responsive to a detection by the first detecting means (1) that the first and second musical tones are the same musical tone, for changing a generated volume of the musical generating channel whereto either the first musical tone or the second musical tone has been assigned, to the composite generated volume or the value equivalent to that composite generated volume which is calculated by the calculating means (3)." Reducing the volume of the first tone would inherently decay the first tone faster.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic musical instrument of Hirotake '040 (as modified by Wallander) by adding Otsuka's volume adjustment to avoid absorbing the second tone into the first tone (Otsuka col. 2, lines 34-40).
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 PHILIP SCOLES whose telephone number is (703)756-1831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 ET.
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.
/PHILIP G SCOLES/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights