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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “13” has been used to designate two different parts in Figure 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electrical shielding planes” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference number 100 is used to designate both a front face and a soundboard in the Specification. Please be consistent with reference number designations.
Reference number 33 has been used within the Specification to designate both a cable (see paragraph [0022]) and electrical conductor (see references in Specification to Figures 8, 9 and 11).
Further, reference number 33 referring to the cable is not shown in the Drawings.
Reference numbers 33c and 33d are used to designate both remote ends (see paragraph [0029] and removable multi-conductor cables (see paragraph [0034]). Please be consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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 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.
The claims are replete with functional language, wherein the recitation that an element is able to perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. For example, “used to filter or transmit”, “so as to sense string vibrational energy”, “to facilitate easy connection”, “which allow the string rest to flex”, etc.
The claims further use indefinite language that makes it unclear whether the limitations should be included as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For example, “any electrical circuit components” (broad and non-limiting, any electrical circuit components will do), “can be shaped” (not specifically shaped, only the possibility that it is shaped), “may be mounted” (not mounted, but the possibility exists).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the independent transducers signals" in lines 7-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of independent transducer signals.
Claim 3, please addressed the repetition of “at least at least5” in line 2.
Claim 4, please clarify whether the electrical components in the last line of the claim are the same as, related to or different from the electrical circuit components recited in preceding claim 1.
As for claims 5 and 6, please clarify what the Applicant intends by “the number of courses”. A course is known in the art as the number of strings or pairs of strings. Please specify whether this is the intended meaning. If that is the intended meaning, then please clarify how, given the Specification recites a correlation between the number of strings and transducers, the number of transducers can be unequal to the numbers of courses or strings.
As for claim 7, please clarify whether the “electrical components of circuits” are the same as, related to, or different from the previously recited electrical circuit components.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the transducer signals" and “the preamp”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a preamp, and the only mention of transducer signals resides in the recitation of independent transducer signals.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outside facing sides". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of outside facing sides.
Further in claim 8, please clarify what is intended by “electrical shielding planes”, since they are not shown in the Drawings or mentioned in the Specification.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the … inner layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of an inner layer.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the string" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a string, merely a stringed instrument, string vibrational energy, and a string rest.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent to Barbera (8,507,783) in view of that which is well-known in the art.
In terms of claims 1 and 2, Barbera teaches a stringed musical instrument saddle (100, 100’) comprising: a plurality of electrically independent transducers (124) and any electrical circuit components used to filter or transmit the transducer signal (see column 6, lines 16-20 and column 11, lines 17-39); with said transducers being located within the saddle so as to sense string vibrational energy in both vertical and horizontal directions (see column 2, lines 35-54); said saddle having at least one electrical connector which connects the independent transducer signals to at least one multi-conductor cable which transmits the signals externally (see column 20, line 59 – column 21, line 18, and column 25, lines 38-60).
Barbera fails however to explicitly teach the cable as removable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide a removable cable since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179, and that it has been held that the
provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Barbera further fails to explicitly teach said saddle being constructed of workable materials that can be shaped to fit. Barbera does however teach the saddle shaped to correspond to fret board (see column 21, lines 28-37), the size of the saddle dependent upon the instrument it is installed on (see column 7, lines 63-65), and the saddle having customizable saddle segments (see column 34, lines 26-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to form the saddle of workable material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended problem(s) to be solved and the criteria of the objectives to be met. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Further, it has been held by the courts that a change in shape, size or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Still further, it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Another example of such shaping can be seen in the US patent to Aaroe et al. (5,322,969), that teaches a saddle made from material that is easily worked to fit and existing bridge and the use of filing and grinding to retrofit a saddle (see column 2, lines 14-17, column 6, lines 13-19 and column 6, line 66 – column 7, line 1). Such a reciliation further shows that it would have been obvious to form the saddle of a workable material that could be reshaped or sized to fit the instrument on which it is to be installed.
As for claim 3, Barbera teaches the saddle comprising a top string rest (101) and a unitary laminated structure (see Figure 1J, column 5, lines 48-50, column 6, lines 3-4, 16-20 and 34-41, column 11, lines 17-36, column 14, lines 29-38 and column 17, lines 14-20). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claim 4, Barbera teaches a copper circuit board (see column 6, lines 13-20, column 18, lines 15-26 and column 19, line 49 – column 20, line 2). Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claims 5 and 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide a desired number of transducers, since Barbera again teaches individual customizable saddle segments (see column 24, lines 26-36), and that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As for claim 7, Barbera teaches receiving and transmitting signals to a preamp (see column 25, lines 47-51 and 57-60). Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claim 8, Barbera teaches the use of shield cables (140, 240) and the use of shielding means (see column 12, lines 37-61 and column 14, lines 18-23). Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claim 9, allowing accessibility is functional in nature and would have been obvious to provide better access to structural elements in order to perform maintenance.
As for claims 10-12, Barbera again teaches a single unitary saddle structure (100, 100’) (see column 5, lines 48-50 and column 6, lines 34-41), while further teaching the use of adhesive (see column 7, lines 34-47 and column 10, lines 4-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere the laminate structures of Barbera together to form said unitary structure, since using a material, such as adhesive, to join multiple structures is well known in the art, and 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).
As for claim 13, Barbera teaches the string rest (101) having notches (75) which allows for flexure (see Figures 1A-M, column 6, lines 51-54, and column 6, line 64 – column 7, line 3). Therefore, obviousness stands.
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.
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 at 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 09/24/2025