Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/847,599

ELECTRONIC DEVICE, ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, AND METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 23, 2022
Examiner
UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 849 resolved
+10.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
903
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 849 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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 1-11 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 “setting a determination grace period during which a plurality of operations on an electronic musical instrument by a user are determined to be simultaneously performed”, “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” and “causing the playback of the accompaniment not to advance from the first section to the second section when a user operation of the electronic musical instrument is detected within the determination grace period for the first section”. Accordingly, when multiple key-on events occur within the determination grace period, said multiple key-on events are considered as being simultaneously performed and cause the playback of the accompaniment not to advance to the second section. However applicant’s specification does not properly describe why simultaneously performed operations, e.g. playing a chord, should result in the playback of the accompaniment to not advance, while operations performed outside of the determination grace period, e.g. sequentially performed notes, should result in advancing the playback of the accompaniment. Applicant’s specification further describes setting the determination grace period to 0 when a first determination is performed after playback of the accompaniment, and assigns 3 as the determination grace period when the determination is not the first run (page paragraph [0051]). Therefore anytime a chord is improperly performed or a sequence of notes are performed during the first determination, the playback of the accompaniment will advance. It is unclear how such a process allows achieving applicant’s objective of providing “music data [that] is adequately played back according to the user’s performance operations” (page 2 paragraph [0007]). Therefore these limitations do not meet the enablement requirement. Claims 2 and 8 include the limitations “if a timing of detection of a second operation on the performance controller that follows the first operation is outside of the determination grace period, instructing a start of playback of the second section” and “if the timing of detection of the second operation is within the determination grace period, not instructing the start of playback of the second section”. However these limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 7 shown above. Therefore these limitations further 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 1-11 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 2-6 and 8-11 depend from claims 1 or 7 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,325,513 B2 pertaining to advancing playback of an accompaniment from a first section to a second section in response to activation of buttons. 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 October 30, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595152
PRECISE ELEVATOR CAR SPEED AND POSITION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595154
ELEVATOR BRAKE DEVICE DETERIORATION PREDICTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589971
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMICALLY MODIFYING A CAPACITY LIMIT OF AN ELEVATOR CAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583711
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING ELEVATOR LOADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562073
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LEARNING TO PLAY A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+9.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 849 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month