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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 9/22/2022 and 5/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Norizou (JP H10340079 A, 12/22/1998), hereinafter Norizou, in view of Jones (US 20100288103 A1, 11/18/2010), hereinafter Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Norizou teaches a keyboard device for a keyboard instrument (Norizou ¶0001: "The present invention relates to a keyboard device used in an electronic keyboard instrument."), comprising: a keyboard chassis having an upper limit stopper (Norizou ¶0003: "Each key 3 is biased upward by the hammer arm 7, but is normally restricted to a predetermined initial position (upper limit position) by an L-shaped stopper piece 12 hanging down from the front end of each key 3 abutting against an upper limit stopper 13 such as felt provided on the underside of the front end of the keyboard chassis 2."); a key extending a predetermined length in a front-rear direction (Keys inherently extend a predetermined length in a front-rear direction.) and disposed above the keyboard chassis (Norizou ¶0008: "The key 3 arranged on the keyboard chassis 2"); and a key support mechanism that is provided in a state engaged with the keyboard chassis, for supporting the key from below (Norizou ¶0008: "The key 3 arranged on the keyboard chassis 2 has its rear end supported by a key support member 20 provided on the keyboard chassis 2"), and causes, upon depression of the key, the depressed key to operate such that the key pivotally moves about a virtual pivot located rearward of a rear end of the key (Norizou ¶0008: "The key 3 arranged on the keyboard chassis 2 has its rear end supported by a key support member 20 provided on the keyboard chassis 2 so as to rotate vertically around an imaginary fulcrum K located behind the key 3. In this case, the imaginary fulcrum K is set to be located far rearward from the rear end of the key 3, for example, at infinity. Therefore, the key support member 20 is configured to support the rear end of the key 3 so that the entire key 3 can be rotated up and down around the virtual fulcrum K, thereby moving the entire key 3 up and down in an approximately parallel state."), wherein the key includes an upper limit position regulation portion provided on a lower portion of a front end of the key, for regulating an upper limit position of the key by moving into contact with the upper limit stopper from below, in a key-released state (Norizou ¶0003: "Each key 3 is biased upward by the hammer arm 7, but is normally restricted to a predetermined initial position (upper limit position) by an L-shaped stopper piece 12 hanging down from the front end of each key 3 abutting against an upper limit stopper 13 such as felt provided on the underside of the front end of the keyboard chassis 2." It is well-known in the art that piano-style keyboards can be regulated by varying the thickness of felts. Besides, adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D).).
Norizou does not explicitly disclose the keyboard device further comprising a key rear-side stopper provided on the keyboard chassis, for moving into contact with the rear end of the key from below before the upper limit position regulation portion moves into contact with the upper limit stopper, when the key returns to its original position where the key was before the key depression.
However, Jones teaches the keyboard device further comprising a key rear-side stopper provided on the keyboard chassis, for moving into contact with the rear end of the key from below (Jones ¶0006: "piano actions are equipped with a key stop rail, made of wood or metal, rigidly suspended above and in close proximity to the key upper surfaces. The key stop rail is strategically positioned to limit excessive upper movement of the keys.")
Furthermore, setting the rear-side stopper to move into contact with the rear end of the key from below before the upper limit position regulation portion moves into contact with the upper limit stopper, when the key returns to its original position where the key was before the key depression, represents a predictable potential solution to the recognized need of necessarily stopping the key at some upper limit. The finite options were to set the front upper limit regulation portion to move into contact with its upper limit stopper (1) before the rear-side upper limit stopper moves into contact with the key from below, (2) simultaneously thereto, or (3) prior to the rear-side stopper. Applicant chose option (3); any of the three options is prima facie obvious under KSR rationale E(2). MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
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 keyboard device for a keyboard instrument of Norizou by adding the rear-side key stopper of Jones to prevent the keys from dislodging from the action when the instrument is moved (Jones ¶0006).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Norizou in view of Jones, and further in view of Kumano (US 4488472 A, 12/18/1984), hereinafter Kumano.
Regarding claim 2, Norizou (in view of Jones) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Norizou (in view of Jones) does not explicitly disclose that the rear end of the key includes: a contact surface for moving into contact with the key rear-side stopper in the key-released state, and a protrusion formed to protrude upward from the contact surface.
However, Kumano suggests that the rear end of the key includes: a contact surface for moving into contact with the key rear-side stopper in the key-released state (Kumano col. 5, lines 18-20: "the ridge 57 and the tongue 58 are held against the lower surface of the top wall 16 and the upper surface of the bottom wall 22, respectively"), and a protrusion formed to protrude upward from the contact surface (Kumano col. 5, lines 5-10: "A ridge 57 of a triangular cross-section is integrally formed on the upper surface of the resilient leaf 46 adjacent to the rear wall 42.").
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 keyboard device for a keyboard instrument of Norizou by adding the protrusion of Kumano to prevent the rear portion of the key from becoming displaced out of position (Kumano col. 7, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 3, Norizou (in view of Jones and further in view of Kumano) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 2 as discussed above.
Kumano further suggests that the protrusion has an upper surface thereof sloped with respect to the contact surface or formed into an arcuate shape convex upward (Kumano col. 5, lines 5-10: "A ridge 57 of a triangular cross-section is integrally formed on the upper surface of the resilient leaf 46 adjacent to the rear wall 42." Kumano fig. 5 teaches a sloped surface of ridge 57 as annotated below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Norizou (in view of Jones and further in view of Kumano) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 3 as discussed above.
Jones further suggests that a stopper support plate mounted on an upper portion of a rear end of the keyboard chassis (Jones ¶0014: "FIG. 1 illustrates a traditional grand piano key 1, pivotally resting on a key frame 2. A key stop rail 3 is rigidly suspended above the keys to prevent their upward movement and possible dislocation during piano transport."), and wherein the key rear-side stopper is fixed to a front end of a lower surface of the stopper support plate (Jones ¶0015: "A key stop rail, such as that shown in FIG. 2 is typically made of solid wood 9. The bottom surface of the rail is covered with a layer of felt, foam or similar material that can dampen noise caused by contact with the key surfaces during performance 10." The key stop rail comprises a stopper support plate, and the layer of felt, foam, or similar material comprises a stopper.).
Conclusion
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 28371
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837