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 statement (IDS) submitted on 9/23/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase, “a let-off function of imparting let-off feeling analogous to let-off of an acoustic piano” in claim 1 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase, “a let-off function of imparting let-off feeling analogous to let-off of an acoustic piano” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase, “let-off feeling analogous to let-off of an acoustic piano” is a subjective evaluation that can vary depending on a style of piano action, manufacture, model, and many other variables, as well as on an individual user’s subjective perception of what may constitute an acoustic piano let-off feel.
Claims 2-12 are likewise rejected for depending, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase, “add let-off feeling to touch feeling of the key having been depressed” in claim 1 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase, “add let-off feeling to touch feeling of the key having been depressed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase, “add let-off feeling to touch feeling of the key having been depressed” is a subjective evaluation that can vary depending on a style of piano action, manufacture, model, and many other variables, as well as on an individual user’s subjective perception of what may constitute an acoustic piano let-off feeling.
Claims 2-12 are likewise rejected for depending, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
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 Shimoda (US 20110017049 A1, 1/27/2011), hereinafter Shimoda, in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20130081532 A1, 4/4/2013), hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Shimoda teaches a keyboard device for a keyboard instrument (Shimoda abstract: "A keyboard device for an electronic keyboard instrument"), which has a let-off function of imparting let-off feeling analogous to let-off of an acoustic piano (Shimoda ¶0040: "let-off feeling is added to the touch feeling of the depressed key 3"), comprising: a keyboard chassis having a plurality of partition walls each extending in a front-rear direction and arranged side by side in a left-right direction (Shimoda ¶0049: "The key support section 13a of the chassis rear part 13 includes a chassis-side key support portion 32 (mounting portion) integrally formed with the chassis rear part 13 itself and…a plurality of key-separating support portions 35." ¶0050: "As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, each of the key-separating support portions 35 separates between the key rear portions 31 and 31 of respective two keys 3 and 3 adjacent to each other and supports the ends 23a and 23a, which are opposed to each other, of the pivot shafts 23 and 23 of the respective keys 3 and 3 at the same time. Specifically, the key-separating support portion 35 comprises a partition wall portion 36.") with a predetermined spacing therebetween (Shimoda ¶0049: "a plurality of key-separating support portions 35 (only nine of which are shown in FIG. 4) (first support portions) formed on the guide surface 34 in a manner arranged side by side in the left-right direction at predetermined spaced intervals"); a plurality of keys each extending in the front-rear direction (Shimoda ¶0004: "Each of the keys extends in a front-rear direction") and arranged at an upper location in the keyboard chassis (Shimoda ¶0048: "The pivot shaft 23 of each key 3 is supported by the key support section 13 a as described hereinbefore.") at respective associated locations between each adjacent ones of the partition walls (Shimoda ¶0050: "As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, each of the key-separating support portions 35 separates between the key rear portions 31 and 31 of respective two keys 3 and 3 adjacent to each other and supports the ends 23a and 23a, which are opposed to each other, of the pivot shafts 23 and 23 of the respective keys 3 and 3 at the same time. Specifically, the key-separating support portion 35 comprises a partition wall portion 36."); and a plurality of hammers (Shimoda ¶0033: "a plurality of hammers 4") each extending in the front-rear direction (Shimoda fig. 1b, ref. no. 4), and pivotally supported on a hammer support shaft provided below an associated one of the keys (Shimoda ¶0037: "The chassis central part 12 has a support shaft 12 a extending in the left-right direction, and the hammers 4 are pivotally supported on the support shaft 12 a." Chassis central part 12 and support shaft 12a are located below key 3 and the key support section 13a of the chassis rear part 13, as taught in Shimoda figs. 1a and 1b.).
Shimoda does not explicitly disclose that the hammer extends between the adjacent partition walls, for each being pivotally moved during key depression in a manner interlocked with the associated key, wherein a let-off member is removably mounted on one of at least one of adjacent two of the partition walls and the hammer disposed between the two partition walls, and wherein an engagement portion is provided on the other of the at least one of the adjacent two partition walls and the hammer disposed between the two partition walls, for being temporarily engaged with the let-off member during pivotal movement of the hammer caused by key depression, to thereby add let-off feeling to touch feeling of the key having been depressed.
However, Suzuki suggests that the hammer extends between the adjacent partition walls (Suzuki ¶0059: "The hammer support 4 is formed by a molded article made of a synthetic resin, as mentioned hereinbefore, and has a plurality of partition walls 51 each partitioning between each adjacent ones of the separating hammers 5 in the left-right direction with a predetermined spacing therebetween. Each partition wall 51 is comprised of a square wall 52 corresponding to the hammer supporting part 19 and formed into a generally rectangular and vertically elongated shape in side view, and a triangular wall 53… all the triangular walls 53 have front half portions of respective upper portions formed continuous with each other in the left-right direction via an upper wall part 55."), for each being pivotally moved during key depression in a manner interlocked with the associated key (Suzuki abstract: "hammers arranged side by side in a left-right direction and each pivotally supported by the hammer support to pivotally move in accordance with depression of an associated key"), wherein a let-off member is removably mounted on one of at least one of adjacent two of the partition walls (Suzuki ¶0061: "Further, the upper wall part 55 has a plurality of mounting holes 58 each formed between associated adjacent partition walls 51 and 51 (triangular walls 53 and 53), for use in mounting the associated let-off member 6." Although Suzuki is silent on removability, making separable is prima facie obvious absent an unexpected result. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C)) and the hammer disposed between the two partition walls (Suzuki ¶0059: "The hammer support 4 is formed by a molded article made of a synthetic resin, as mentioned hereinbefore, and has a plurality of partition walls 51 each partitioning between each adjacent ones of the separating hammers 5 in the left-right direction with a predetermined spacing therebetween."), and wherein an engagement portion is provided on the other of the at least one of the adjacent two partition walls and the hammer disposed between the two partition walls, for being temporarily engaged with the let-off member during pivotal movement of the hammer caused by key depression, to thereby add let-off feeling to touch feeling of the key having been depressed (Suzuki ¶0056: "During halfway through the pivotal motion of the hammer 5, the engaging projection 27 is brought into engagement with the head part 28 of the let-off member 6 to cause the head part 28 to press the let-off member 6 while compressing the same, whereby a reaction force acting on the hammer 5 from the let-off member 6 is increased. When the hammer 5 further pivotally moves, the engaging projection 27 is disengaged from the head part 28, whereby the reaction force from the let-off member 6 suddenly disappears. The increase and sudden disappearance of the reaction force from the let-off member 6 gives let-off feeling closely similar to that of an acoustic piano.").
Furthermore, a let-off function of imparting let-off feeling analogous to let-off of an acoustic piano, and adding a let-off feeling to touch feeling of the key having been depressed are non-limiting intended results. MPEP § 2111.04(I).
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 Shimoda by adding the let-off member of Suzuki to produce a let-off feeling closely similar to that of an acoustic piano (Suzuki ¶0056).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shimoda in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 20190019484 A1, 1/17/2019), hereinafter Taniguchi.
Regarding claim 2, Shimoda (in view of Suzuki) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Suzuki further suggests that the let-off member is made of an elastic material (Suzuki ¶0053: "The let-off member 6 is formed by a molded article of a predetermined elastic material") and is mounted on each of the adjacent two partition walls (Suzuki ¶0061: "the upper wall part 55 has a plurality of mounting holes 58 each formed between associated adjacent partition walls 51 and 51 (triangular walls 53 and 53), for use in mounting the associated let-off member 6."), and wherein the engagement portion is configured to be capable of being engaged with each let-off member mounted on the adjacent two partition walls, during the pivotal movement of the hammer caused by key depression (Suzuki ¶0056: "During halfway through the pivotal motion of the hammer 5, the engaging projection 27 is brought into engagement with the head part 28 of the let-off member 6 to cause the head part 28 to press the let-off member 6 while compressing the same, whereby a reaction force acting on the hammer 5 from the let-off member 6 is increased. When the hammer 5 further pivotally moves, the engaging projection 27 is disengaged from the head part 28, whereby the reaction force from the let-off member 6 suddenly disappears.").
Shimoda (in view of Suzuki) does not explicitly disclose that the engagement portion is provided on each of left and right sides of the hammer.
However, Taniguchi suggests that the engagement portion is provided on each of left and right sides of the hammer (Taniguchi ¶0160: "However, as shown in FIGS. 9A to 9C, the elastic deformer 57 may be arranged on both left and right sides of the pressor 58 (transmitter 10), holding the pressor 58 of the transmitter main body 21 from both sides, as in the first embodiment described above.").
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 Shimoda by adding the left and right side elastic deformers of Taniguchi to attain stable action by preventing horizontal shaking in the right and left directions (Taniguchi ¶0161).
Regarding claim 11, Shimoda (in view of Suzuki) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Suzuki further suggests a member formed in a manner protruding outward from left and right side surfaces of the hammer (Suzuki ¶0081: "each of the left and right protrusions 45 and 45 of the hammer 5"), wherein the engagement portion is formed on each of opposed surfaces of adjacent two of the partition walls (Suzuki ¶0080: "Note that the present invention is by no means limited to the embodiment described above… For example, the stopper of the present invention may be formed as a stopper extending along the outer peripheral edge of the stopper wall 60 and protruding from the partition wall 51.")
Shimoda (in view of Suzuki) does not explicitly disclose that the let-off member is made of an elastic material, mounted on the hammer.
However, Taniguchi suggests that the let-off member is made of an elastic material (Taniguchi abstract: "a first abutting part which is arranged on one of the hammer member and a member which the hammer member abuts, and an elastic part which is arranged on another of the hammer member and the member which the hammer member abuts"), mounted on the hammer (Taniguchi ¶¶0148-0149: "The let-off generator 55 has an elastic deformer and a pressor whose components or positioning are opposite to those of the let-off generator 45 in the first embodiment. Specifically, the let-off generator 55 has an elastic deformer 57 which is arranged on the hammer arm 30 of the hammer member 11").
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 Shimoda by adding the left and right side elastic deformers of Taniguchi to attain stable action by preventing horizontal shaking in the right and left directions (Taniguchi ¶0161).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shimoda in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Taniguchi and Ishida (US 20130074683 A1, 3/28/2013), hereinafter Ishida.
Regarding claim 3, Shimoda (in view of Suzuki and further in view of Taniguchi) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 2 as discussed above.
Suzuki further suggests that the let-off member includes: a mounting portion mounted on the partition wall (Suzuki ¶0061: "the upper wall part 55 has a plurality of mounting holes 58 each formed between associated adjacent partition walls 51 and 51 (triangular walls 53 and 53), for use in mounting the associated let-off member 6."), and an engagement protrusion (Suzuki ¶0056: "During halfway through the pivotal motion of the hammer 5, the engaging projection 27 is brought into engagement with the head part 28 of the let-off member 6") provided below the mounting portion (Suzuki ¶0053: "The let-off member 6 extends rearward and downward from the switch mounting part 20, and has an end thereof formed as a head part 28 projecting from a neck part").
Shimoda (in view of Suzuki) does not explicitly disclose mounting the mounting portion at a predetermined location from below, and the engagement protrusion having a bent surface bent convex toward the hammer with which the engagement protrusion is to be engaged.
However, Ishida suggests the engagement protrusion (Ishida ¶0046: "The let-off member 6 extends rearward and downward from the switch mounting part 20, and has an end thereof formed as a head part 28") having a bent surface bent convex toward the hammer with which the engagement protrusion is to be engaged (Ishida ¶0073: "The head part 28 has a convexly curved distal end.").
Furthermore, mounting the mounting portion at a predetermined location from below constitutes a recited step. Claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Additionally, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is insufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP § 2144.04(III)).
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 Shimoda by adding the convex engagement protrusion of Nishida to produce a let-off feeling closely similar to that of an acoustic piano (Suzuki ¶0056).
Regarding claim 8, Shimoda (in view of Suzuki and further in view of Taniguchi and Ishida) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 3 as discussed above.
Suzuki further teaches that the let-off member is configured such that when the engagement portion of the hammer is engaged with the engagement protrusion from above, resistance force acting on the hammer becomes smaller than resistance force acting on the hammer when the engagement portion is engaged with the engagement protrusion from below (Suzuki ¶0056: "During halfway through the pivotal motion of the hammer 5, the engaging projection 27 is brought into engagement with the head part 28 of the let-off member 6 to cause the head part 28 to press the let-off member 6 while compressing the same, whereby a reaction force acting on the hammer 5 from the let-off member 6 is increased. When the hammer 5 further pivotally moves, the engaging projection 27 is disengaged from the head part 28, whereby the reaction force from the let-off member 6 suddenly disappears. The increase and sudden disappearance of the reaction force from the let-off member 6 gives let-off feeling closely similar to that of an acoustic piano.").
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shimoda in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Taniguchi and Yoshida (US 20100282049 A1, 11/11/2010), hereinafter Yoshida.
Regarding claim 9, Shimoda (in view of Suzuki and further in view of Taniguchi) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 2 as discussed above.
Shimoda (in view of Suzuki and further in view of Taniguchi) does not explicitly disclose that a plurality of let-off members are prepared as a unit component in which the let-off members are disposed in a state arranged side by side in a manner associated with the plurality of partition walls on which the let-off members are to be mounted, respectively, and are integrally formed with each other in a state continuous with a connection portion having a belt shape via each mounting portion, and wherein the unit component is configured such that when assembling the keyboard device, the connection portion is separated, after the plurality of let-off members have been mounted on the plurality of partition walls, respectively, from the let-off members.
However, Yoshida suggests that a plurality of let-off members are prepared as a unit component in which the let-off members are disposed in a state arranged side by side in a manner associated with the plurality of partition walls on which the let-off members are to be mounted, respectively, and are integrally formed with each other in a state continuous with a connection portion having a belt shape via each mounting portion (Yoshida ¶0037: "Preferably, the holder has a plurality of mounting holes formed therein in a manner arranged with a predetermined space between each adjacent two in association with the respective hammers, and the let-off imparting members are integrally molded such that the let-off imparting members are each connected via a connecting part formed of a flexible material and having a predetermined length larger than the predetermined space, in a manner adjacent to one another, and each of the let-off imparting members is mounted to the holder via an associated one of the mounting holes.").
Furthermore, configuring the unit component such that when assembling the keyboard device, the connection portion is separated, after the plurality of let-off members have been mounted on the plurality of partition walls, respectively, from the let-off members, represents making the unit component separable, which is prima facie obvious absent an unexpected result. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(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 keyboard device for a keyboard instrument of Shimoda by adding the let-off unit component of Yoshida to make it easy to store and handle let-off member sets (Yoshida ¶0040).
Regarding claim 10, Shimoda (in view of Suzuki and further in view of Taniguchi and Yoshida) teaches a keyboard device comprising the features of claim 9 as discussed above.
Shimoda (in view of Suzuki and further in view of Taniguchi and Yoshida) does not explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of let-off members is provided with a symbol corresponding to a partition wall on which the let-off member is to be mounted.
However, each of the plurality of let-off members being provided with a symbol corresponding to a partition wall on which the let-off member is to be mounted represents nonfunctional descriptive material that does not pertain to the structure of the apparatus. Even if it does pertain to the structure of the apparatus, there is no new and non-obvious functional relationship because it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art that piano action parts are commonly marked or labeled for assembly, which would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to improve manufacturing efficiency (Yoshida ¶0036).
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 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837