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 applicant’s amendment filed April 22, 2026. Claims 2, 7 and 12 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Objections to claims 4, 9 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-15 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 include the limitation “generate and maintain, in a memory, a phrase command management array that stores … phrase command position information and lesson presence information for the selected lesson hand”. However applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not describe a phrase command management array to be generated for an already selected lesson hand. According to applicant’s specification, a phrase command management array is generated when a musical piece number is selected (S1-S2) (page 6 last paragraph through page 7 first paragraph), and after the phrase command management array has been generated, then a selection of a lesson hand is received (S3) (page 8 second paragraph). See FIG. 2. Instead, the claims describe generating a phrase command management array after a selection of a lesson hand, and utilizes lesson hand selection information for said generation. Therefore generation of a phrase command management array after selection of a lesson hand, where the phrase command management array is generated for the selected lesson hand is considered new matter.
Claims 3-5, 8-10 and 13-15 depend from claims 1, 6 or 11 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims then also contain the limitations considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama (US 6,211,452 B1) in view of Wada (US 6,609,979 B1).
Claims 1, 6 and 11: Haruyama discloses a musical performance keyboard apparatus, musical performance phrase determining method executed by a computer of a musical performance keyboard apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a program stored thereon for controlling a computer of a musical performance keyboard apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to receive a selection via on-event of a mode changing switch to change a mode number register (MOD) (column 17 lines 31-35) according to a selection of a lesson hand of a user to be practiced on a keyboard, and generate and maintain in a memory, a phrase command management array that stores, for each of a plurality of phrases included in a musical piece, phrase command position information so as to be executed collectively phrase by phrase (column 3 lines 64-67) and lesson presence information (left hand, right hand or both hand instructions) for the selected lesson hand (column 16 lines 26-45). A first phrase (first section/phrase) that is to be a performance target to be performed by the user with the selected lesson hand is determined from among the plurality of phrases and a second phrase (second section/phrase) that includes a lesson including tone pitch information of the performance information for the selected lesson hand is determined, from among the plurality of phrases and based on the phrase command position information and the lesson presence information stored in the phrase command management array, and a display is controlled to display information indicating the second phrase to the user so as to determine a consecutive range of phrases inclusive of the first phrase and the second phrase as a set of phrases that are to be the performance target to be performed by the user with the selected hand (column 6 lines 29-37, 46-58). This reference fails to disclose the second phrase to be selected as a recommended phrase, and the set of phrases to be determined in response to an operation by the user selecting the second phrase.
However Wada teaches a musical performance apparatus, musical performance phrase determining method executed by a computer of a musical performance apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a program stored thereon for controlling a computer of a musical performance apparatus, where a first phrase (starting point) is determined and second phrase (end point phrase) is determined (column 15 lines 15-24, 54-64) and the second phrase is selectively changed according to operation by a user (player) (column 16 lines 8-14).
Given the teachings of Wada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the musical performance keyboard apparatus, method and storage medium disclosed in Haruyama with providing the second phrase to be selectively changed in response to an operation by the user. The second phrase then would be a recommended phrase, which could be changed by a user, and the set of phrases would be determined in response to an operation by the user selecting the second phrase. Doing so would allow “a practice range [to be] set in one portion of music … [allowing] a player to perform the rendering operation in this range, the player can [then] practice the desired range intensively, and thus a practice mode which is suitable for the practice of music can be provided” (column 20 lines 35-39).
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14: Haruyama modified by Wada discloses musical performance apparatus, musical performance phrase determining method, and storage medium as stated above, where Haruyama discloses a phrase that is one before a first phrase to be determined to be a recommended phrase to be inserted when a read pointer indicates data pointed to by the pointer is not end data of a phrase, or immediately before a phrase (column 20 lines 23-48). The phrase is inserted then when the first phrase starts from a middle of a measure or when there is an operation of a musical performance that the user should perform in the phrase that is one before the first phrase.
Claims 5, 10 and 15: Haruyama modified by Wada discloses musical performance apparatus, musical performance phrase determining method, and storage medium as stated above, where Haruyama discloses a score musical performance data to be determined corresponding to key-off/key-on timings based on a comparison between musical performance data of a first phrase based on operation of a musical performance and musical piece data of a portion of the first phrase (column 32 lines 33-46), and control a display to display a suggestion of a recommended phrase recommended as the second phrase when a scored result reaches a threshold (column 30 lines 38-42).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights