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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed April 13, 2026. Claims 2 and 8 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
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 1, 3-7 and 9-11 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 include the limitations “if a timing of detection of a second operation … is outside of the determination grace period, instructing a start of playback of the second section” and “if the time of detection of the second operation … is within the determination grace period, not instructing the start of playback of the second section”. According to the claim(s), when multiple key-on events occur within the determination grace period, said multiple key-on events are considered as being simultaneously performed. Applicant’s specification describes that when playing a song, a chord could be played comprising multiple notes (page 18 paragraph [0062]), or multiple parts could be played simultaneously (page 19 paragraph [0065]). However applicant’s specification does not describe why playback should not be advanced to a second section when playing a chord or simultaneously performed sections, e.g. playing notes with both left and right hands at the same time since both of these situations commonly occur when performing music on a piano. It is unclear how such a process allows playback of an accompaniment of a song based on data of the song as described in applicant’s specification (page 3 paragraph [0008]) when the data includes chords (page 9 paragraph [0023]). Therefore these limitations do not meet the enablement requirement.
Claims 3-6 and 9-11 depend from claims 1 and 7 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims then also contain the limitations which do not meet the enablement requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 and 7: Although the prior art (US 8,026,437 B2) teaches an electronic device and a method performed by at least one processor in an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor (column 23 lines 25-31), a song having a first section and a second section that follows the first section; and setting a determination grace period (double stop judgement time JT) during which a plurality of operations (note-on) on an electronic musical instrument by a user are determined to be simultaneously performed for the first section based on the data included in the first section of the music (column 8 lines 53-62); the prior art does not teach nor suggest instructing playback of an accompaniment of a song based on a data of the song, advancing the playback of the accompaniment from the first section to the second section when a user operation of the electronic musical instrument is detected outside of the determination grace period for the first section during the playback of the first section of the accompaniment; and causing the playback of the accompaniment not to advance from the first section to the second section when the user operation of the electronic musical instrument is detected within the determination grace period for the first section during the playback of the first section of the accompaniment. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 3-6 and 9-11 depend from claims 1 or 7 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 9 of the response that “sometimes, the user may accidentally play the next note or notes … too early” and “is regarded as a part of a ‘chord’ that is associated with the first operation, and the accompaniment does not advance to the second section”. However applicant’s specification describes that playback of an accompaniment of a song is based on data of the song (page 3 paragraph [0008]) where the data can include chords (page 9 paragraph [0023]). Therefore whenever the accompaniment includes a chord, the playback would not advance since timing of a second operation would be within the grace period of a first operation. This does not allow for the music data to be adequately played back as described in applicants’ specification (page 2 paragraph [0007]) when the music data includes chords. Therefore the claimed limitations do not meet the enablement requirement.
Conclusion
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 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 CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights